Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-01.txt

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-12-23 12:01, Juha Hakala wrote:
> ...
>> Is this the "HTTP" may go way argument? Even if it does, you will
>> still be able to write resolvers, just like what you're trying to do
>> right now with URNs.
>
> No, I was just emphasizing the point that if we piggyback service
> parameters in <query> they will not be part of the URN itself. Whenever

(Because the NSS syntax doesn't allow "?").

True, but it *will* be part of the identifier if you view it from a URI 
point of view.

> there are fundamental changes in technology, the URN itself remains the
> same, but the service parameters may be encoded differently.

Not convinced; you described one way to add resolution information to 
the urn: URI, creating a different thing that is a different URI.

If you're ok with the URN not being resolvable without additional 
out-of-band information, there are many many other ways to achieve the 
same result.

Best regards, Julian