Re: [urn] URN:DOI namespace registration request

Paul Jessop <> Mon, 18 January 2021 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F09A3A0B54 for <>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 09:46:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dT0hih4LfOYG for <>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 09:46:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 984EC3A0B48 for <>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 09:46:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4673DA45E for <>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 17:46:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jmymj9zPIDYM for <>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 17:46:37 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A46CAA833 for <>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 17:46:37 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:46:36 +0100
Received: from ([fe80::516d:9387:664a:7563]) by ([fe80::516d:9387:664a:7563%13]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.010; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:46:36 +0100
From: Paul Jessop <>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <>, "Hakala, Juha E" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [urn] URN:DOI namespace registration request
Thread-Index: AQHW7b0KdBAqygkVVEaauUDP7Cfgeaotl34A
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 17:46:36 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.45.21011103
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
x-1and1-spam-score: 1/100
x-1and1-spam-level: None
x-1and1-expurgate-category: clean
x-provags-id: V02::fcfgFUhmc8t5vk0ediZyQ6PtuI8/gVlHmM3LCqAtXGIHS 653jJtdAB94vhPSDcLJseFCgxxYLPfy8hZtH6uI4NN500n74JD IsxVSOqzP2WpSC9hrchXfTG8vzoPB1o4WnxiZRhdxvwlED27Sr BNNRttMnyA7gB5xru9JpehSh4/glFCZ3TBtJyvEIQri5buy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <EB16977345FFEA4296FA8A832B0BD930@win.mail>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [urn] URN:DOI namespace registration request
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 17:46:43 -0000

Hi Dale,

It is frustrating that someone else's provisional URI registration continues to create confusion. This registration was made without the knowledge of the DOI Foundation and our first reaction was that it was a form of "identifier piracy" - leading to an initial robust request to cease their actions. It seems from what I can see that the players behind it are acting in good faith but with ambitious (over-ambitious?) expectations that they will achieve in-browser resolution of a large range of URI schemes.

I haven’t pressed them to withdraw their registration because the status quo (where they at least had the courtesy put our name on the registration) serves to prevent someone with less scruples from "grabbing" the scheme name and causing even more confusion.

To be clear, the intent of The DOI Foundation is to address the technical issues that have been raised here (which are confident we can do) and continue the URN namespace request. We do not intend to turn the URI reservation into an application. If necessary we can be "robust" again with the parties who made the reservation but I didn’t see a clean way to turn it into "please regard the URI scheme name 'doi' as exceptionally reserved (to use a country code term) although there is no intent to register it as a scheme for ISO 26324 DOIs". If there are experts here who can advise on language for that, we would be very glad to receive guidance.

The preference in our strategy for securing the URN namespace registration comes from some of our user communities who are extremely comfortable with URN - because of experience with NBN and EIDR URN codes.

I hope that addresses your concerns - and trust you can have another look at this. If there is any other information or background I can provide, please let me know.

With best regards,

Paul Jessop
Technology Adviser, The DOI Foundation

Paul Jessop              county analytics ltd 
rights - technology - markets - music - media 
---------------------------------------------      +44 7850 685378

On 18/01/2021, 17:12, "Dale R. Worley" <> wrote:

    My apologies for not attending to this sooner.

    I'm afraid I object to this registration as a matter of principle,
    rather than a matter of details.  The inclusion of the DOI space as part
    of the URI space should be done through the implementation of the doi
    URI scheme -- as has already been proposed -- and the details of that
    should be fixed by the DOI Handbook.

    Looking at the benefits listed in the proposed registration, they are as
    easily obtained by use of doi URIs as they are by doi URNs.

    Given the provisional registration of the doi scheme, it appears that
    the DOI Foundation intends to establish the details of the scheme.  It
    would be unwise for us to establish an entirely parallel defintion as a
    namespace, where for sanity's sake, the two definitions would have to be
    maintained in exact alignment.