[urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-02
SM <sm@resistor.net> Wed, 27 June 2012 23:25 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 E4E1911E8124 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.565
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.565 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wssd0mGPNT0W for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:25:28 -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 5AEE311E8122 for <urn@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5RNPJxa005247 for <urn@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1340839524; bh=qiqvHQM765t2YrCXl0X7B/rB+M3v0HeoMXwRip8Wcho=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=BRRzf9xjsR9IjD3XJpYnYBi+uuZA3gnkWtXNUg4S8uCE3jGEHGorDx4VzWn8xZoyQ oTPbQW9OC2yHH+LCybsPIcrPufHNrTlcFAtOpi0iDwNloCiPGh39c3hGfD5fT8JiNm HHtJzGzbGFGnEz5sXJk6bvBy03sc8Z51WZOJeEOs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1340839524; i=@resistor.net; bh=qiqvHQM765t2YrCXl0X7B/rB+M3v0HeoMXwRip8Wcho=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=ii8BmGf5d+e3q7zZZvOSXLJGlde5ppQ8gxOVBG66K02ZRwujllaxwKLsu9P/XNpot TQcNECWHENTZqJkTcTFUmfDeHP0TiTf4oY4n6TcIYlqiP6G7ZiI4Hl22ea4xQAfO7X KXmMs9WiVlPZ2Dxzysk7R6PuDOZKAtxIyzXhAi2E=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120627161737.08c30300@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:17:43 -0700
To: urn@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-02
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, 27 Jun 2012 23:25:33 -0000
Hi, These comments are on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-02. The comments may sound abrupt. It is not intentional. In the Abstract Section: "The requirements and procedures for URN Namespace registration documents are set forth in BCP 66, for which RFC 3406bis is the companion revised specification document replacing RFC 3406." The above paragraph isn't relevant to the document contents. In the Introduction Section: "Uniform Resource Names (URNs) are intended to serve as persistent, location-independent, resource identifiers and are designed to make it easy to map other namespaces (that share the properties of URNs) into URI-space." RFC 3986 mentions that 'the term "Uniform Resource Name" (URN) has been used historically to refer to both URIs under the "urn" scheme [RFC2141], which are required to remain globally unique and persistent even when the resource ceases to exist or becomes unavailable, and to any other URI with the properties of a name'. The above text does not mention global uniqueness and persistence even when the resource ceases to be unavailable. Are those characteristics important? In Section 1.1: "Since this RFC will be of particular interest for groups and individuals that are interested in persistent identifiers in general and not in continuous contact with the IETF and the RFC series, this section gives a brief outline of the evolution of the matter over time. Appendix E gives hints on how to obtain RFCs and related information." This is unnecessary. if a person cannot find RFC XXXX, it's unlikely that the person would find this document. "Registration procedures for URI Schemes originally had been laid down in RFC 2717 [RFC2717] and guidelines for the related specification documents were given in RFC 2718 [RFC2718]. These documents have been obsoleted and consolidated into BCP 35, RFC 4395 [RFC4395], which is based on, and aligned with, RFC 3986." The history of the registration procedures is not as important. I suggest moving it into an appendix if the author wants to keep that information. I found the text informative but most readers won't share that view. In Section 1.2: "This section aims at quoting requirements as identified in the past; it does not attempt to revise or redefine these requirements, but it gives some hints where more than a decade of experience with URNs has shed a different light on past views. The citations below are given here to make this document self-contained and avoid normative down- references to old work." Such information might only be informative for a small subset of IETF participants. People reading a document about URN syntax might find it confusing. This this is a stylistic nit. I suggest targeting the average reader. Describe the properties of URNs and move the historical information to an appendix if the author would like to keep that. In Section 1.3: "RFC 2141 does not seamlessly match current Internet Standards. The primary objective of this document is the alignment with the URI standard [RFC3986] and URI Scheme guidelines [RFC4395], the ABNF standard [RFC5234] and the current IANA Guidelines [RFC5226] in general. The objective should be in the Introduction Section. Move the Historical information to the section about history. "For advancing the URN specification on the Internet Standards-Track, it needs to be based on documents of comparable maturity. Therefore, to further advancements of the formal maturity level of this RFC, it deliberately makes normative references only to documents at Full Standard or Best Current Practice level." This above is not that useful in the context of this document. In Section 2: "The syntax definitions below do, and syntax definitions in dependent documents MUST, conform to the URI syntax specified in RFC 3986, in the sense that additional syntax rules must only constrain the general rules from RFC 3986." This requirement is incorrect as it isn't that good to have one based on "dependent documents". Keep the text simple by telling the reader what are the syntax requirements. "RFC 2141 was published before the URI Generic Syntax was finalized and therefore had to defer the decision on whether <query> and <fragment> components are applicable to URNs. RFC 2141 therefore has reserved the use of bare (unencoded) question mark ("?") and hash ("#") characters in URNs for future usage in conformance with the generic URI syntax." What's the impact of keeping this; i.e. would it break a generic URI parser? "The <fragment> part is not generally allowed in URNs. It is only applicable to URN Namespaces that specifically opt to support its usage." I suggest removing this sentence or rewording the following sentence to cover the optional (MAY) case. Section 2 comes out as being too lengthy. In Section 2.1: "To avoid confusion with the URI Scheme name "urn", the NID "urn" is permanently reserved by this RFC and MUST NOT be used or registered." If this memo reserves the NID, it cannot be registered. In Section 3: "Any identifier to be used as a URN MUST be expressed in conformance with the URI and URN syntax specifications ([RFC3986], this document)." Why is this requirement necessary? In Section 6: "Namespace registrations must include guidance on how to determine functional equivalence for that URN Namespace, i.e., when two URNs are identical within a namespace." Why is the above in this document? In Section 7: "At the time of publication of RFC 2141, no formal registration procedure for URI Schemes had been established yet, and so IANA only informally has registered the 'urn' URI Scheme with a reference to [RFC2141]." The above paragraph is not important within the context of this document. Although the draft is well-written, it was tedious for me to find actionable information. This turned into a disincentive to suggest text changes. RFC 2141 contained eight pages. The draft contains 32 pages. I suggest trimming the text. Using RFC 3906 as an example. the draft is clear when it discusses about syntax components. Regards, -sm