Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-saintandre-urn-example-00

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Wed, 09 January 2013 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 A061021F87E3 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 07:59:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V+P57uNRzD72 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 07:59:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBFFA21F87E1 for <urn@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 07:59:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.42]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1591220C7D; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 10:59:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 09 Jan 2013 10:59:34 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpout; bh=e8uDRTb1TUoIs5045fF89h 0gbsU=; b=cOcGtP4ojvE6mIuNSXlyI3oS/Wr9Y3FmIWSEQd0CtGhVLoq/tJOUK1 SQx+HtQATQK8tiv0kM9KYCBuaMiXCyHW8swsEKnsItZE//1i175LEBbQ4yFzZ1RJ 1WABkAw/D97/HSgPtAL+OMkj7TKD3jAYX3vzJL7xGekRYaMvXO1P0=
X-Sasl-enc: RJgzDcxtwquJxNDfU6o9/wrbRhDg/y8d9thkRFuzy7jS 1357747173
Received: from [192.168.1.20] (unknown [65.16.145.177]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1534A8E07A5; Wed, 9 Jan 2013 10:59:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <50ED93E2.9040002@network-heretics.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 10:59:30 -0500
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
References: <201208162101.XAA08756@TR-Sys.de> <502DF26E.3050406@gmx.de> <50EB1560.3060602@stpeter.im> <50ECF1CC.6030208@network-heretics.com> <50ED9168.6050000@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <50ED9168.6050000@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-saintandre-urn-example-00
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:59:35 -0000

On 01/09/2013 10:48 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>>
>>>> urn:uuid: is used a lot in practice, and I simply don't see a
>>>> practical problem with it.
>> Whether something works well in practice, and whether something conforms
>> to the intent of a standard, are of course two separate questions.
>>
>> Again, URNs were designed to identify resources.   If people use them
>> for other things, that's not a problem so long as such use doesn't
>> degrade the intended utility of URNs.   It's not like the protocol
>> police are going to chase down the users of UUID URNs and put them in
>> jail if those UUIDs weren't chosen to refer to resources.  And of course
>> you can't tell by looking what is named by a URN  - and that is a
>> feature, not a bug.
>>
>> But just because people find uses for URNs that weren't intended,
>> doesn't mean that the URN standard should be changed to encompass those
>> uses.  This _would_ degrade the utility of URNs.
>>
>> To be clear, there's nothing in principle wrong with a UUID URN. What's
>> wrong is using a UUID URN just because what you need is a unique
>> identifier that doesn't refer to a resource, and you want that unique ID
>> to be some sort of URI.   Yes, it probably does little harm most of the
>> time, but it's still not a good idea to promote the practice.
>> ...
>
> "This specification does not limit the scope of what might be a 
> resource; rather, the term "resource" is used in a general sense for 
> whatever might be identified by a URI." -- 
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.1.1>
>
> Case closed.
yes, but it didn't anticipate that URNs would be widely used to not name 
resources at all.

again, most such uses do little harm.  but that's not an argument for 
perverting URNs to be just
random numbers instead of resource identifiers.

Keith