IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [urn] [apps-discuss] URNs are not URIs (another look at RFC 3986)

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 17 April 2014 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090E11A018D; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:40:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 i2MxTH0oEl3q; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74FFE1A0088; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.103] ([217.91.35.233]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx103) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MAy40-1WiSSs3OBo-009zNY; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:40:10 +0200
Message-ID: <534FE7BC.4070002@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:39:56 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
References: <C93A34DBE97565AD96CEC321@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAMm+Lwia99RdyO4RFScSwCaVHLsr_BRzmXK18eUoxGFti79Vog@mail.gmail.com> <001976FFC9FE8FFCAA2E7990@JCK-EEE10> <CAMm+Lwiz1nyT6khGqa693E8Tq9Srrd3kaETRN=K0NUq-SsX1Vw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwiz1nyT6khGqa693E8Tq9Srrd3kaETRN=K0NUq-SsX1Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:hnMpq0k9iEQXWxdEZMBN9CvKbaA/vyBax4m4LfRpotEuHC03sQy itM7j6zJAa4f47U1cW6erI3iW2S5WK7hAuEOKZa/SzG0dZe215WIzNcPi/RPAj0hBgP96nh WuHCoNLl3MdvWUAjdW9AKs0L3EwK/gzHAuYd0ubwkWZlW2aoyvCbsAN0/f/mvj7rJbopa2s K39zE1bVFAH9L08xvyZvw==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/Z1k_IE7xGD3FNNwXttXMGhiFILk
Cc: urn@ietf.org, General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [urn] [apps-discuss] URNs are not URIs (another look at RFC 3986)
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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, 17 Apr 2014 14:40:23 -0000

On 2014-04-16 20:58, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:40 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>> Actually, we don't disagree on anything but language and tactics.
>
> I understood that. It is a specification so language is rather important.
>
> I don't like the suggestion that the URI slot in the existing
> protocols no longer includes URNs. But I am more than happy to toss
> virtually the entire URI syntax out.
>
> I am also rather suspicious of the idea that the difference between
> URNs and URLs is that one is a name and the other is an index. Both
> are both.
>
> The real difference is that a URL must contains a DNS name and a URN
> probably does not.
> ...

Not true. It doesn't need to be a DNS name.

> ...

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email