Re: [urn] new draft 9 - RE: new urn PWID draft (7) with corrections

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 06 September 2019 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
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 CEB9F120813 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 05:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=C6Ch3Yi3; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=RZt4DI2E
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 dABHonqY9rEX for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 05:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3136012001B for <urn@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 05:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.198.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id x86CwiFg004929 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 6 Sep 2019 05:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1567774735; x=1567861135; bh=+oLxn0SoWGWR4Lwqv2NjAILfb7vCEyuopeEFrts8hOQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=C6Ch3Yi3TFSYdE5NyJN1/YjJJDOaRbhuGiWpiCvIL6rvwvrOC41P2OEHbZ3QRGWHp yoCTzPD5rN8MEwn55ys7rjWKOBGjB+SKCh/VQyhYTVKBoOYTa0875I5fSD5aO50LGm Ymp9GUklicEwYTgwdNq98iea1pnDcaubfQSibedg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1567774735; x=1567861135; i=@elandsys.com; bh=+oLxn0SoWGWR4Lwqv2NjAILfb7vCEyuopeEFrts8hOQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=RZt4DI2EtyLc0wcfDojhk7nUBS9NUlxMLcFOPW8xsIpJ8xRCR3eoZq1SaCSB92fDT Jxmc0azCsuU5DrGecYxubl8czetUEu2x5ReW82/xe4x8C/PCn6iDy6mgC06m+NMyll pv3uYlXutxPaKESdB3yf5F4Nw242pKY0pZ8Cu5Y0=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20190906054230.1366a8b8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 05:57:43 -0700
To: Eld Zierau <elzi@kb.dk>, urn@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <5dc7b935b3664b618108067a187ec855@kb.dk>
References: <5dc7b935b3664b618108067a187ec855@kb.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/bBYG9m9eSN4mTLsV9Mboi2a8H9c>
Subject: Re: [urn] new draft 9 - RE: new urn PWID draft (7) with corrections
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 12:58:59 -0000

Dear Eld,
At 12:43 AM 06-09-2019, Eld Zierau wrote:
>Let me stress that I really think it is important that this is a 
>standard obtained within IETF as it is very much related to the 
>internet. The PWID can cover a very

There was a request for a URN registration in December 2017.  That is 
not the same as a standard obtained within the IETF.

One of the comments from Mr Thompson was about the following: "The 
PWID URNs do not have to be assigned by an authority, as they are 
based on the information created at the time of archiving".  There is 
usually an entity managing a namespace on behalf of its 
community.  It is not clear who will ensure uniqueness of identifiers 
if there isn't any authority to makes the decisions.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy