Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-01.txt

"Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de> Thu, 12 January 2012 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
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 A482A21F8606 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:35:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E8yuq-Q3PbO4 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:35:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nordpol.ddb.de (nordpol.ddb.de [193.175.100.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F229821F8513 for <urn@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 10:35:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dbf-ex.AD.DDB.DE (unknown [10.69.63.214]) by nordpol.ddb.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B42D5C41 for <urn@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:35:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from DNBF-EX1.AD.DDB.DE ([10.69.63.245]) by dbf-ex.AD.DDB.DE with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:35:52 +0100
Received: from DNBF-EX1.AD.DDB.DE ([fe80::7076:30f7:60ad:16a0]) by dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE ([fe80::7076:30f7:60ad:16a0%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:35:52 +0100
From: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
To: "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHMz6LQgCegjXXSQU2O4Ltn33aGlJYJEcwQ
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:35:52 +0000
Message-ID: <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EFF115@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE>
References: <201110312251.XAA11909@TR-Sys.de> <4EC4DF6D.7070209@helsinki.fi> <4EEBB9D9.3060505@stpeter.im> <4EF32B68.2070408@helsinki.fi> <4EF32EDB.6040807@gmx.de> <4EF4384B.6090208@helsinki.fi> <4EF44091.3070608@gmx.de> <4EF45F8B.7040509@helsinki.fi> <4EF821A9.3050404@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4F0BD92D.8070108@helsinki.fi> <4F0C0524.6050007@gmx.de> <CAGnGFM+5m==jXsREpEHf6vWd0a6XU7oo-6WtW3Fbbo=PMbduzw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGnGFM+5m==jXsREpEHf6vWd0a6XU7oo-6WtW3Fbbo=PMbduzw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.200.69.229]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jan 2012 18:35:52.0914 (UTC) FILETIME=[0392AB20:01CCD159]
Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-01.txt
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:35:55 -0000

Jonathan wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> wrote:
> 
> > On 2012-01-10 07:22, Juha Hakala wrote:
> > I still don't see what this has to do with "location" vs "naming".
> You can
> > start with a locator and overload it as a name, or you can start with
> a name
> > and overload it as locator.
> >
> > The former has been done a lot with HTTP URIs, the latter is what you
> seem
> > to try to do with URN resolution.
> >
> > In the end, where's the difference?
> 
> As I see it the significant difference between urn: and http: is that
> the NID registry is administered by IETF through the RFC process, and
> establishes NIDs permanently, while the domain name registries (other
> than .arpa, .example, and .invalid) are administered by ICANN (with
> delegation to TLDs and so on), and seem to always involve the threats
> of expiration and steward corruption.

[...]
> I think persistence and resolvability can and should be decoupled, and
> treated as separate responsibilities.

+1

> Persistence is relative and to some extent subjective. I would say
> that the RFC series is a pretty good bet for persistence, as are the
> non-DNS registries such as media type, link relation, message header,
> etc. So that is where I would set the bar - are the bindings of the
> URIs in question (whether URN or HTTP) as persistent as the binding of
> (say) media type name to media type?

+1

Thanks, Jonathan. Excellent points!

All the best,

Lars
  **** Bitte beachten Sie die neue Internet- und E-Mail-Adresse. ****
  **** Please note my new internet- and email-address. ****

-- 
Dr. Lars G. Svensson
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek / Informationstechnik
http://www.dnb.de/
l.svensson@dnb.de