Re: [urn] [IANA #1215575] GDST URN Registration Request Status Inquiry
worley@ariadne.com Fri, 05 November 2021 01:14 UTC
Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8CB53A0B62 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 18:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcastmailservice.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c-7z1wVNWmen for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 18:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F6083A0B5E for <urn@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 18:14:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.102]) by resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTP id inj8muUSuIdOQinoNmFmSZ; Fri, 05 Nov 2021 01:14:31 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcastmailservice.net; s=20180828_2048; t=1636074871; bh=/alLENP4lzCgVvFyyJKM/5ru87wME9Ec9Y2JGOo+yh8=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=KgElI6IFkVeJl5MMzvktMN9mhMdZO9O6hK0JVzWX/jT1u3gyRZ8BGdZY3KfOXcCgC l1NsTKqC3sGuEWRsnzWlUf9952XcooOg+wnhloS0bconHZ/Zg7vz13t5/aKlzBx23B bic8zrgnP+MdwoEMF25nRXzl9+hhPFJr61KeyAnsEhQ34tdHg56LE2INY6Gjw/srT7 Apr89XUebB1/5+Fz8oBmRLNj9VVk4MCFtqnhsXyXLae7+VSZFRIDo5/YGpyJbT3Pvr Ts61RQony8VY7pmJCtBqBoFzgGVtaoSJpYh5AFKuwViHAsBC7cbhJRWf/FLyv17CV/ I3iIndfnhCSYg==
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([66.31.109.155]) by resomta-ch2-06v.sys.comcast.net with ESMTPA id inoLmMig8Qav7inoMmxNTR; Fri, 05 Nov 2021 01:14:31 +0000
X-Xfinity-VAAS: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddrtdehgddvlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucevohhmtggrshhtqdftvghsihdpqfgfvfdppffquffrtefokffrnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddunecunecujfgurhephffvufgjshestddttddttddttdenucfhrhhomhepfihorhhlvgihsegrrhhirggunhgvrdgtohhmucdlffgrlhgvucftrdcuhghorhhlvgihmdenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeduueeukeejfeettdefieeufefgteetheeuieegteeuteegleeiheegueejheehudenucffohhmrghinhepihgvthhfrdhorhhgpdhtrhgrtggvrggsihhlihhthidqughirghlohhguhgvrdhorhhgnecukfhppeeiiedrfedurddutdelrdduheehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehhvghlohephhhosghgohgslhhinhdrrghrihgrughnvgdrtghomhdpihhnvghtpeeiiedrfedurddutdelrdduheehpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepfihorhhlvgihsegrlhhumhdrmhhithdrvgguuhdprhgtphhtthhopeifohhrlhgvhiesrghrihgrughnvgdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehlrdhsvhgvnhhsshhonhesughnsgdruggvpdhrtghpthhtohepihgrnhgrqdhprhhothdqphgrrhgrmhdqtghomhhmvghnthesihgrnhgrrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepuhhrnhesihgvthhfrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepshhtphgvthgvrhesmhhoiihilhhlrgdrtghomh
X-Xfinity-VMeta: sc=0.00;st=legit
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 1A51ESN5666380 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 4 Nov 2021 21:14:29 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 1A513ImI664934; Thu, 4 Nov 2021 21:03:18 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com
To: iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org
Cc: urn@ietf.org, worley@ariadne.com, L.Svensson@dnb.de, stpeter@mozilla.com
In-Reply-To: <rt-4.4.3-15393-1635894969-1948.1215575-9-0@icann.org> (iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 21:03:18 -0400
Message-ID: <878ry31kix.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/XcRx-KyJ_kxQMkQ86D-hjI0XRPM>
Subject: Re: [urn] [IANA #1215575] GDST URN Registration Request Status Inquiry
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/urn/>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 01:14:40 -0000
"Sabrina Tanamal via RT" <iana-prot-param-comment@iana.org> writes: > We've received the following request from Philip Heggelund. Please see > below. > > It looks like the request was sent to the mailing list back in June, > but no response. Below, I recap the situation because many of the relevant messages that I've seen aren't on the urn@ietf.org mailing list. (I don't know why.) My assessment is that the comments should be considered by the registrant but that our overall attitude to the registration request is favorable and reaching consensus should be easy. Dale The original request is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/8V4juiJBSm98NoU-m00Fo2t6TLU/ It was sent 4 June 2020 (not 2021) and was accompanied by an RTF file containing the registration. I have seen the following comments about the registration (abbreviated): From: "Hakala, Juha E" <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2020 06:20:12 +0000 Having red the introductory material, I am convinced that the request is relevant and should be processed ASAP, since an international standard using URN:GDST's was approved in March. There is no formal specification of the syntax, just several examples of URN:GDST's assigned for different resource/data types. IMO this is acceptable since clause 6.4.2 in RFC 8141 says: [...] I cannot tell if what is said about lexical equivalence of these URNs is sufficient. Organization that is generating the URN is identified with either its domain name or with UUID. This is not an ideal solution but although domain names do not last for long, they should live long enough to enable tracing of a particular product. If the organization does not have a domain name and UUID is used, the organization can be found using the metadata. Data types are not explained, but there is information about some of them in the core standard specification. IMO the information provided is sufficient. From: "Lars G. Svensson" <lars.svensson@web.de> Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 14:19:17 +0100 working through my backlog, I managed to process this request today. I agree with Juha, that it is a very important namespace! I'd say that the use of domain names should be discouraged and that they should settle for UUIDs only, since domain names can (and will) be lost. Also I miss information if the list of data types is closed and (if not) how they will handle additions to that list. From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 21:43:22 -0500 The registrant is named as "Global Dialogue on Seafood Traceability" but there isn't really any contact information for the GDST itself. It appears from their web site https://traceability-dialogue.org/gdst-steering-committee/ that it has a Steering Committee, so it's clear that the GDST is a body that can act as a whole. The registration ought to document that. A number of the syntactic components are described as "For URN-equivalence, the [***foo***] is case sensitive." That is good. But it would be useful for completeness and accuracy if the [domain/uuid] component was described specifically as case-insensitive. As others have noted, the syntax specification is unusually informal. But as far as I can tell, it is unambiguous, and the registration provides useful examples, which make clear what the syntax notation is. As others have noted, domain names do not have long-term stability. One way of looking at this is that if a domain name changes hands, the new owner could avoid using [prefix] that have been used by former owners. (This depends on these URNs either being short-lived "items in commerce" or a small and easily discerned set of long-lived "dictionary item".) Another approach that has been proposed for other URNs is to combine the domain name with its date of acquisition by the current owner. Another approach is to have the "domain names" registered by the user with either the GDST or IANA. But of course, using UUIDs avoids all of these problems. An environment question that is significant is whether these URNs are expected to be seen/read by humans during ordinary usage. If they're almost always contained in barcodes, UUIDs without inconvenience. (The information capacity of QR codes suggests this is easily accommodated.)
- [urn] [IANA #1215575] GDST URN Registration Reque… Sabrina Tanamal via RT
- Re: [urn] [IANA #1215575] GDST URN Registration R… worley
- Re: [urn] [IANA #1215575] GDST URN Registration R… worley