Re: [urn] Agenda for IETF 90

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Sun, 13 July 2014 09:51 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB8091B2A28 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Jul 2014 02:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.442
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=no
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 40J2k8M4DH3G for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Jul 2014 02:51:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 123CA1B2A23 for <urn@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Jul 2014 02:51:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.15]) by scintmta01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E50F32E579; Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:51:12 +0900 (JST)
Received: from itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmeg01-14.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 3685_8fdc_aaba3793_76e2_49f3_ad39_708f998fbdeb; Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:51:11 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF0FC00D9; Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:51:10 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <53C2567D.20202@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:50:53 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>, "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
References: <CAAQiQRdUPA9Kgtugv-jSFnt9JK+NVsudwspqsnV5ph+XHkyAdg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAQiQRdUPA9Kgtugv-jSFnt9JK+NVsudwspqsnV5ph+XHkyAdg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/fewVYKke2GyndAOdXfWXFle-Ypg
Subject: Re: [urn] Agenda for IETF 90
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 09:51:15 -0000

On 2014/07/12 03:59, Andrew Newton wrote:
> We are currently scheduled for Friday, July 25, 1150 - 1320.

I'm sorry I'll not be able to attend this session in person, and I'll 
also not be able to attend remotely, because it's at a time of the day 
where my body isn't useful for anything much else than sleeping :-(.

> 1. Agenda Bashing
>
> 2. draft-ietf-urnbis-urns-are-not-uris
>     John Klensin
>
> NOTE: The purpose of this session is to discuss the important topic
> of separating URNs from URIs.

Terminology differences don't get solved by splitting, only by clear 
explanations. URIs are an extremely general concept, and URNs can easily 
live within (and be much more restricted to address the needs of the 
communities using them). There is therefore no need for a "split".

> Of specific interest are the following
> questions:
>    1) Will allowing the use of the reserved characters ?’ and ‘#’ or
>       other expansions of syntax cause URN interoperability problems?

This is a question completely unrelated to the "split". It is a very 
good and important question, and I hope some useful information can be 
gathered in Toronto and otherwise, but essentially:
- If the use of '?' or '#' causes interoperability problems, then that's
   a problem for URNs, and no "split" from URIs will solve it.
- If the use of '?' or '#' does not cause interoperability problems,
   then that's not a problem, because URI/IRI syntax allows '?' and '#'.

>    2) If there is no interoperability harm, is the approach to separate
>       URNs from the URI framework the currently-known, least-bad
>       approach?

No. There is no need for a "split". URNs fit very well into the URI 
framework, because the URI framework is *extremely* general.

>    3) If URNs are to be separated from the URI framework then how
>       should it be done?

It shouldn't be done, so the question of how it should be done is 
irrelevant.

> 3. Any Other Business

There are various proposals for how to use query parts, how to create 
registries, and so on. These should be discussed in detail, so that some 
progress can be made.

Regards,   Martin.