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

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Fri, 17 August 2012 12:17 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 5259E21F84D3 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.274
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.274 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, 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 qxAut1KdA5ZO for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D4921F84CD for <urn@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.45]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F9E8207C1; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:17:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from frontend2.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.161]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:17:46 -0400
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=ZF1I3Y8MJIIPyoTJVkjVwc iVjtU=; b=JLplOeJOxDU4JGCKFmfVi7nFNAPg1D6iOFfuoSJQLh5RbQU6Zk3Ye9 u+gVAdOz52SJ3uaEfY+5CdNdIo9F7RG0DFqqLg7s2gg2PGNQ2UJLUTy8NW7UrcFf JjQ+CELihI5/P5zIoRqtQyK/XMPEYzHPqwKbbNseqg2qUQn8IffNk=
X-Sasl-enc: 0UKcnBr+1u8ckarQBnJsB55BZB0LonC5kqCBPMmoesDD 1345205865
Received: from [192.168.1.20] (unknown [65.16.145.177]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 690B548279B; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:17:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <502E3666.9090308@network-heretics.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 08:17:42 -0400
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
References: <201208162101.XAA08756@TR-Sys.de> <502DF26E.3050406@gmx.de> <502E31B0.8000500@network-heretics.com> <502E3460.209@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <502E3460.209@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: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:17:47 -0000

On 08/17/2012 08:09 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-08-17 13:57, Keith Moore wrote:
>> ...
>> I don't actually have a problem with UUID URNs in principle, so long as
>> the mechanisms used to generate UUIDs actually ensure that they're
>> unique. (If memory serves, they do, but it's been awhile since I've read
>> the spec).   As long as people use UUID URNs to refer to resources, such
>> usage is perfectly consistent with the intended purpose of URNs.  And I
>> certainly am not suggesting that UUID URNs be deprecated, or any thing
>> similarly disruptive.
>>
>> The problem I have is with the idea that has emerged that if you need an
>> ID that happens to be a URI, a URN is the right thing to use. I've
>> seen a lot of things labeled "urn:" that didn't refer to resources, or
>> worse, weren't unique at all, apparently because of this idea.
>> ...
>
> Do you have a definition of "resource" different from:
>
> "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>
>
> ?

That's not a very useful definition for determining whether a URN is 
appropriate.  But my point is that a URN should name _something_.

In addition, it needs to be clear what is being named by the URN. 
Otherwise there's no way to ensure persistence of the binding between 
the URN and the resource.

Keith