Re: [urn] Finalizing items from IETF 83

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

On 7/3/12 1:20 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-07-03 21:14, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 6/28/12 4:01 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 2012-06-28 11:42, Svensson, Lars wrote:
>>>> Juha wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But
>>>>> I hope that RFC2141bis will say at least that fragments are not
>>>>> part of
>>>>> the NSS but they can be used in those namespaces which specifically
>>>>> allow that.
>>>>
>>>> I'll second that RFC 2141bis says that fragment identifiers are
>>>> allowed in URNs but that they are not part of the NSS. Further, RFCs
>>>> for new namespaces must specify if they allow the use of fragment
>>>> identifiers or not but I guess that is something for RFC 3406bis.
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> Namespace specifications define the namespace-specific part; nothing
>>> else. Fragment syntax and semantics are defined by RFC 3986.
>>>
>>> A spec *can* point out that the URN does not identify something from
>>> which a payload + media type can be retrieved, in which fragment
>>> identifiers are not applicable. But that's different from disallowing
>>> them.
>>
>> Julian, by "spec" here do you mean a specification for a particular
>> namespace identifier? ...
> 
> Yes
> 
>> ...(And would one result be that each NID spec would
>> need to specify whether URNs issued within that NID identify entities
>> from which a payload + media type can be retrieved?)
> 
> I'd prefer those specification to be simply silent on the issue, or
> alternatively that the URN spec contains a clarification the NID
> specifications can simply reference.

And what do you think that clarification would say? Perhaps something
like "unless a particular URN namespace explicitly specifies otherwise,
applications ought to assume that no payload or media type can be
retrieved from the entity associated with a URN"?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/