Re: [urn] Are ISO 3166 country codes stable enough for URN use?

Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> Sun, 21 February 2016 20:38 UTC

Return-Path: <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644FF1A8869 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 12:38:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WrICBM9bhJfM for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 12:38:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net (mxout-08.mxes.net [216.86.168.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 904C41A87A9 for <urn@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 12:38:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.123.7] (unknown [75.83.2.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 52BF6509BD; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 15:38:38 -0500 (EST)
To: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>, urn@ietf.org
References: <56CA13F5.7070707@seantek.com> <1804C7530E646E7F15CDD2E8@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
From: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
Message-ID: <56CA2012.3060504@seantek.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 12:37:38 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1804C7530E646E7F15CDD2E8@JcK-HP5.jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/kl0nUtKyEoC_8bI3bfTlFzgwvbU>
Subject: Re: [urn] Are ISO 3166 country codes stable enough for URN use?
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:38:41 -0000

Ok.

It sounds like the durability and persistence requirements for URNs are 
being relaxed somewhat, compared to the old days.

I'm fine with that, carry on.

Sean

On 2/21/2016 12:35 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Sean,
>
> Very briefly and having spend far too much time immersed in a
> well-known use of 3166 and it implications, two observations:
>
> (1) The "we can, and probably will, reassign a code after five
> years" rule have been dead for some years.  You should be
> careful about what you treat as an authoritative reference.
> Because of (2), I may regret even mentioning that.
>
> (2) The definition of "persistent enough" or "stable enough"
> inevitably has to be per-namespace.  One of the earliest
> examples in the discussions that led to URNs was "the weather
> in..." which can be as stable as location names are as a
> reference but whose object is typically entirely unstable.
>
> This isn't a WG topic.  When the NDN spec is revised, you can
> certainly have the discussion in the context of that revision
> (assuming they don't simply decide to register something based
> on a document published elsewhere which, fwiw, is certainly what
> I would be inclined to do if I were in their position).
>
>     john
>
>
> --On Sunday, February 21, 2016 11:45 AM -0800 Sean Leonard
> <dev+ietf@seantek.com> wrote:
>
>> In reviewing the latest draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition, I
>> noticed the dependency on NBN [RFC3188], which in turn depends
>> on ISO 3166.
>>
>> An example is <URN:NBN:fi-fe19981001>.
>>
>> URNs are supposed to be stable and durable over time...
>>
>> but are ISO 3166 country codes stable enough for URN?
>>
>> I have not actually read all of the details of ISO 3166. But
>> ISO 3166 grapples with an intensely political question: how to
>> name countries. I read this PDF:
>> http://unstats.un.org/unsd/tradekb/Attachment194.aspx
>>
>> And it says that "withdrawn [codes] may not be reused for five
>> years". That means that they can be reused in five years. I
>> think that violates some URN principles.
>>
>> NBN isn't the first time we have seen ISO 3166 country codes
>> in URNs. There is the urn:lex proposal (not really sure where
>> that is now).
>>
>> There are also my proposals for urn:xmlns and urn:rdf. However
>> in my proposals, the entire NSS is assigned on a first-come,
>> first-served basis: the relationship between two- and
>> three-character ISO 3166 country codes being part of the NSS
>> is purely a coincidence and therefore reassignment of a
>> country code does not affect the durability and immutability
>> of the assigned string.
>>
>> Sean
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> urn mailing list
>> urn@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn
>
>
>