[urn] Re: GS1 URN: submission, version 6.1.0

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the quick turnaround. This looks great.

Peter

On 7/27/26 3:47 PM, Chris Day wrote:
> Hi Peter –
> 
> Sorry for the delay. I’ve attached a reformatted request in RFC 8141 
> format for your review. We can treat this as Version 1, and I’ll get on 
> with the RFC for the Independent Submissions Streamprocess.
> 
> *Chris Day*
> Technical Business Analyst
> AI & Data Sustainability
> 
> *GS1 **Global Office*
> *T* [phone]
> *M* [phone]
> *E* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> www.gs1.org <http://www.gs1.org/>
> 
> <https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/ 
> user/[e-mail]? 
> anonymous&ep=signature&ismsaljsauthenabled>
> 
> 		
> 
> Book time to meet with me <https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/ 
> user/[e-mail]? 
> anonymous&ep=signature&ismsaljsauthenabled>
> 
> 	
> 
> *From:*Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* 27 July 2026 20:34
> *To:* Chris Day <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [urn] Re: GS1 URN: submission, version 6.1.0
> 
> Hello again.
> 
> Chris, I notice that your registration request to the URN list took the
> form of an Internet-Draft, which included much more information than
> simply the completed registration template. Although I do not want to
> remove any information that would enable readers to understand the
> namespace (e.g, the Appendices), it's unclear to me how to reformat the
> registration request at this time for consistency with RFC 8141 and all
> the other formal namespace registrations.
> 
> Do you plan to eventually publish an RFC (likely through the Independent
> Submissions Stream) containing the more complete information? If so, we
> could treat version 1 of the registration (i.e., only Section 2 of the
> document you sent to the list) as something of a placeholder so that GS1
> can move forward with its standardization process, then include version
> 2 of the completed registration template with the RFC.
> 
> Please advise as to your preferences.
> 
> Peter
> 
> On 7/26/26 3:28 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>  > Hi Chris,
>  >
>  > My apologies - family matters arose. I will submit this registration to
>  > IANA in the next day or two.
>  >
>  > Peter
>  >
>  > On 7/21/26 4:12 AM, Chris Day wrote:
>  >> Hi Peter –
>  >>
>  >> Any update on the registration of GS1 URN ?
>  >>
>  >> *Chris Day*
>  >> Technical Business Analyst
>  >> AI & Data Sustainability
>  >>
>  >> *GS1 **Global Office*
>  >> *T* [phone]
>  >> *M* [phone]
>  >> *E* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>  >>
>  >> www.gs1.org <http://www.gs1.org> <http://www.gs1.org/ <http:// 
> www.gs1.org>>
>  >>
>  >> <https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/ <https://outlook.office.com/ 
> bookwithme>
>  >> user/[e-mail] 
> <mailto:user/[e-mail]>?
>  >> anonymous&ep=signature&ismsaljsauthenabled>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Book time to meet with me <https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/ 
> <https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/>
>  >> user/[e-mail] 
> <mailto:user/[e-mail]>?
>  >> anonymous&ep=signature&ismsaljsauthenabled>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> *From:*Chris Day
>  >> *Sent:* 08 July 2026 14:40
>  >> *To:* 'Lars G. Svensson' <lars.svensson=[e-mail] 
> <mailto:lars.svensson=[e-mail]>>;
>  >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>  >> *Subject:* RE: [urn] Re: GS1 URN: submission, version 6.1.0
>  >>
>  >> Hi Lars –
>  >>
>  >> I think we want to proceed with the registration as is, without the
>  >> changes mentioned.
>  >>
>  >> There is some internal wrangling over the clarifying wording of the
>  >> EPC and GS1 relationship, and this will take time. A subsequent
>  >> corrigendum may arise.
>  >>
>  >> *Chris Day*
>  >> Technical Business Analyst
>  >> AI & Data Sustainability
>  >>
>  >> *GS1 Global Office*
>  >> *T* [phone]
>  >> *M* [phone]
>  >> *E* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>  >>
>  >> www.gs1.org <http://www.gs1.org> <http://www.gs1.org/ <http:// 
> www.gs1.org/>>
>  >>
>  >> <https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/ <https://outlook.office.com/ 
> bookwithme/>
>  >> user/[e-mail] 
> <mailto:user/[e-mail]>?
>  >> anonymous&ep=signature&ismsaljsauthenabled>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Book time to meet with me <https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/ 
> <https://outlook.office.com/bookwithme/>
>  >> user/[e-mail] 
> <mailto:user/[e-mail]>?
>  >> anonymous&ep=signature&ismsaljsauthenabled>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> *From:*Lars G. Svensson <lars.svensson=[e-mail]
> <mailto:lars.svensson=[e-mail]%20%0b>>> 
> <mailto:lars.svensson=[e-mail] 
> <mailto:lars.svensson=[e-mail]>>>
>  >> *Sent:* 08 July 2026 12:57
>  >> *To:* Chris Day <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>;
>  >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>  >> *Subject:* AW: [urn] Re: GS1 URN: submission, version 6.1.0
>  >>
>  >> Chris, all,
>  >>
>  >> The registration of the gs1 namespace (version 6.1.0) is fine with me.
>  >>
>  >> I have two minor suggestions that arised when I read _only_ the
>  >> registration template (§ 2):
>  >> * It would be helpful to have links to the relevant ancillary
>  >> documentation.
>  >> * In the section "Identifier attribution semantics" it would be
>  >> helpful to have some text clarifying the relation between GS1-
>  >> Identifiers and EPC-Identifiers. My suggestion is something along the
>  >> lines of
>  >> [[
>  >> URNs in the id branch of the gs1 namespace are related to URNs in the
>  >> epc namespace [RFC5134] in that they can be used to convey product
>  >> data including gtin, serial number etc. For a further discussion of
>  >> this relation, please refer to §3.1 of <the enclosing I-D>.
>  >> ]]
>  >> That would help to make the registration template work as a stand-
>  >> alone document. If you choose not to make the changes, I'm fine with
>  >> the document as-is, too.
>  >>
>  >> Best,
>  >>
>  >> Lars
>  >>
>  >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>  >> Von: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:[e-mail]
>  >> <mailto:[e-mail]> 
> <mailto:[e-mail]%20%0b%3e%3e%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]%3e>]
>  >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Juni 2026 20:42
>  >> An: Chris Day <chris.day=[e-mail]
> <mailto:chris.day=[e-mail]%20%0b>>> 
> <mailto:chris.day=[e-mail] 
> <mailto:chris.day=[e-mail]>>>; Dale R. Worley
>  >> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>; 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>  >> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Phil Archer 
> <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]%20%0b>>> <mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>>; Mark Harrison <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]%20%0b>>> <mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>>
>  >> Betreff: [urn] Re: GS1 URN: submission, version 6.0.0
>  >>
>  >> Chris, thanks for the quick turnaround on these edits, and thanks to
>  >> Dale for his reviews. I'll endeavor to send feedback soon.
>  >>
>  >> Peter
>  >>
>  >> On 6/11/26 3:46 AM, Chris Day wrote:
>  >>  > Hi Dale -
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Please find attached an updated revision with the concerns addressed.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Again, thank you for your diligence, it's really appreciated.
>  >>  >
>  >>  >
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Chris Day
>  >>  > Technical Business Analyst
>  >>  > AI & Data Sustainability
>  >>  > GS1 Global Office
>  >>  > T [phone]
>  >>  > M [phone]
>  >>  > E [e-mail]
>  >>  > www.gs1.org <http://www.gs1.org> <http://www.gs1.org <http:// 
> www.gs1.org>>
>  >>  >
>  >>  >
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Book time to meet with me
>  >>  >
>  >>  >
>  >>  >
>  >>  > -----Original Message-----
>  >>  > From: Dale R. Worley <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>
>  >>  > Sent: 11 June 2026 02:43
>  >>  > To: Chris Day <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>;
>  >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Phil Archer
>  >>  > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>; Mark 
> Harrison
>  >> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]%20%3cmailto:[e-mail]>>>
>  >>  > Subject: Re: [urn] Re: GS1 URN: submission, version 6.0.0
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Version 6.0.0 takes care of most of my concerns, and I am in favor of
>  >>  > approving the registration. However there are a couple of points that
>  >>  > remain:
>  >>  >
>  >>  > The structure of the document might be improved. Specifically, if
>  >> section 2 is the namespace registration, it should work as a stand-
>  >> alone document. However, it isn't stand-alone in one respect: the
>  >> Syntax section gives only an informal grammar, referring to the ABNF
>  >> in Appendix A. ISTM that the registration should contain the proper
>  >> grammar.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Now if the whole document was approved as an RFC, then the template
>  >> Syntax section could just refer to "Appendix A of RFC xxxx". But my
>  >> expectation is that GS1 wants to get the registration approved faster
>  >> than the RFC process.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > One possible solution is to move the informal grammar from the 
> section
>  >>  > 2
>  >>  > (template) Syntax clause into section 1 (introduction), possibly
>  >> just after the listing of the three categories of URNs. Then move the
>  >> grammar from Appendix A into the Syntax clause. That makes the
>  >> template stand- alone but still presents the reader with the informal
>  >> grammar before the ABNF.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > The second point is verifying that GS1 has, or definitely will,
>  >> provide some sort of formal guidance/standard that explains how the
>  >> URNs are to be attributed. E.g., given
>  >> "urn:gs1:gdd:bie:TradeItem.netContent", is there text that states what
>  >> document/text/concept this URN names? This is opposed to there being a
>  >> standardized table named "TradeItem" with an entry named "netContent"
>  >> but no explicit text stating what the table entries imply about GS1 
> URNs.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Now I expect that for the gdd:bie, gdd:bdt, gdd:cl, and std
>  >> branches this will be done, people are unlikely to overlook that. But
>  >> I'm slightly concerned about the <ai> branch. It appears that <ai>
>  >> URNs are semantically collections of attribute names and values. It
>  >> wouldn't be entirely surprising if explicitly specifying that fact
>  >> (and exactly how collections are to be interpreted based on their
>  >> members) might be overlooked during standards development.
>  >>  >
>  >>  > Dale
>  >>  >
>  >>  > CONFIDENTIALITY / DISCLAIMER: The contents of this e-mail are
>  >> confidential and are not to be regarded as a contractual offer or
>  >> acceptance from GS1 (registered in Belgium).
>  >>  > If you are not the addressee, or if this has been copied or sent to
>  >> you in error, you must not use data herein for any purpose, you must
>  >> delete it, and should inform the sender.
>  >>  > GS1 disclaims liability for accuracy or completeness, and opinions
>  >> expressed are those of the author alone.
>  >>  > GS1 may monitor communications.
>  >>  > Third party rights acknowledged.
>  >>  > (c) 2020.
>  >>  >
>  >>  >
>  >>  > _______________________________________________
>  >>  > urn mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>  >>  > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:urn- 
> [e-mail]> <mailto:urn-
> <mailto:urn-%20%0b>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>  >>
>  >> _______________________________________________
>  >> urn mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
> <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>  >> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:urn- 
> [e-mail]> <mailto:urn-
> <mailto:urn-%20%0b>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >> CONFIDENTIALITY / DISCLAIMER: The contents of this e-mail are
>  >> confidential and are not to be regarded as a contractual offer or
>  >> acceptance from GS1 (registered in Belgium). If you are not the
>  >> addressee, or if this has been copied or sent to you in error, you
>  >> must not use data herein for any purpose, you must delete it, and
>  >> should inform the sender. GS1 disclaims liability for accuracy or
>  >> completeness, and opinions expressed are those of the author alone.
>  >> GS1 may monitor communications. Third party rights acknowledged. (c)
>  >> 2025.
>  >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  >
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CONFIDENTIALITY / DISCLAIMER: The contents of this e-mail are 
> confidential and are not to be regarded as a contractual offer or 
> acceptance from GS1 (registered in Belgium). If you are not the 
> addressee, or if this has been copied or sent to you in error, you must 
> not use data herein for any purpose, you must delete it, and should 
> inform the sender. GS1 disclaims liability for accuracy or completeness, 
> and opinions expressed are those of the author alone. GS1 may monitor 
> communications. Third party rights acknowledged. (c) 2025.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------