[urn] I want URNs for hashes and large random numbers

[Sean Leonard <[e-mail]>]

IETF 90 was my first URNBIS meeting. It was an...interesting experience, 
so I decided to join this list.

Here is what I want: I want (unbroken) cryptographic hashes and large 
random numbers to be usable as URNs. Specifically, I want things like:
urn:sha1:da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 *
urn:uuid:f47ac10b-58cc-4372-a567-0e02b2c3d479 **

and I want identifiers that are valid in their respective namespace, 
that represent (unbroken) cryptographic hashes or large random numbers, 
to be valid URNs as well, without any complaints:

urn:oid:2.25.324969006592305634633390616021200786553 ***

* not an actual URN, yet
** actual URN
** actual URN -- this one is the aforementioned Version 4 Random UUID in 
decimal in the OID arc. It's an OID-y way of saying urn:oid:uuid:f47ac10b...

I reviewed some of the e-mails over the past year. Nobody has really 
said anything about this. However, some people tend to hem and haw when 
they see these kinds of things without some kind of "registration 
authority" that makes some sort of "promise" not to cause collisions.

I reviewed draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-09:
Section 3:

    2.  The "consistent assignment" constraint means that an identifier
        within the namespace is assigned by an organization or created in
        accordance with a process or algorithm that is always followed.


This tells me that an organization is not required; it is sufficient to 
define a process or algorithm (e.g., cryptographic hashing operation, or 
"pick a random large number") that guarantees uniqueness within certain 
constraints, and call it a day.

So are we okay with these kinds of URNs now? If not, what can we do to 
ensure that urnbis says that these types of things are okay?

Thanks,

Sean