Re: [urn] Putative nits

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, April 09, 2015 21:29 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre -
&yet <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>> 3. Section 6, paragraph starting "With regard to global
>>> uniqueness":    Just simply state that a single resource can
>>> have more than one URN assigned to it.   It doesn't matter
>>> whether those URNs exist for different purposes.
> 
> That is one example of why more than one URN might be assigned
> to the same resource. I suggest:
> 
> OLD
>     However, a single resource can have
>     more than one URN assigned to it for different purposes
> (for example,
>     if a book were published in a monograph series, it could
> have both an
>     ISBN [RFC3187] and an ISSN [RFC3044] assigned to it,
> resulting in two
>     URNs referring to the same book).
> 
> NEW
>     However, a single resource can have
>     more than one URN assigned to it (e.g.,
>     if a book were published in a monograph series, it could
> have both an
>     ISBN [RFC3187] and an ISSN [RFC3044] assigned to it,
> resulting in two
>     URNs referring to the same book).

Wfm.  Note, however, that draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition
obsoletes 3044 and 3187 so we may want to either find other
examples or say something like "URNs based on ISBN [] and ISSN
[]" and then reference the ISO specifications.

>...
>>> At least as far as the URN architecture is
>>> concerned, all URNs are equally valid.   (If the resource
>>> wants to specify which of several URNs is the distinguished
>>> name for itself, that's a different matter.)
>> 
>> This paragraph has been slightly rewritten in -11 to reflect
>> Ted's comments.  I'd like the WG to have a chance to look at
>> this and compare it to the approach you recommend before
>> making further changes.
> 
> I think some slight rewording can address these issues.

Agreed.  This adds to the importance of other people speaking
up, ideally before Friday's interim meeting, rather than having
a discussion among Keith, Peter, and myself.

    john