Re: [urn] Finalizing items from IETF 83

Juha Hakala <> Thu, 28 June 2012 11:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8309521F85A8 for <>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iFCwG-sTxMuJ for <>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC76521F85A5 for <>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q5SBqrbV007339 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:52:54 +0300
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:52:53 +0300
From: Juha Hakala <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:10.0.5) Gecko/20120605 Thunderbird/10.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julian Reschke <>
References: <> <> <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EF246915EE@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [urn] Finalizing items from IETF 83
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:53:00 -0000


On 28.6.2012 13:01, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-06-28 11:42, Svensson, Lars wrote:

>> I'll second that RFC 2141bis says that fragment identifiers are
>> allowed in URNs but that they are not part of the NSS. Further, RFCs
>> for new namespaces must specify if they allow the use of fragment
>> identifiers or not but I guess that is something for RFC 3406bis.
> No.
> Namespace specifications define the namespace-specific part; nothing
> else. Fragment syntax and semantics are defined by RFC 3986.
> A spec *can* point out that the URN does not identify something from
> which a payload + media type can be retrieved, in which fragment
> identifiers are not applicable. But that's different from disallowing them.

OK. It should be possible to adjust the text in rfc2141bis to say that 
there are namespaces in which fragment usage is not applicable since the 
resources which can be identified within than namespace - say, textual 
works as abstract entities in URN:ISTC - will not have fragments in the 
RFC 3986 sense of the word.

As far as I am concerned, it does no harm if the namespace registration 
request confirms that it is possible to use fragment to augment the 
functionality of the URNs from that particular namespace. For instance, 
I asked a permission from the ISBN Registration Authority to use 
fragments in the URN:ISBN namespace. Since this point will be made in 
the namespace registration request the national ISBN agencies and other 
ISBN users do not need to ask if fragments are allowed. And while some 
examples could be given in the namespace registration request it is 
definitely up to the URI Generic Syntax and other relevant technical 
documents to provide the necessary details for each document format.

All the best,

> Best regards, Julian


  Juha Hakala
  Senior advisor, standardisation and IT

  The National Library of Finland
  P.O.Box 15 (Unioninkatu 36, room 503), FIN-00014 Helsinki University
  Email, tel +358 50 382 7678