[urn] Re: FW: Request to IANA for formal URN assignment (Bank VTB)

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 11/13/24 1:28 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:

Dale, I agree with your first two points. On the third point, see below.

> 3. Of the 90 or so formal URN namespace registrations, it does not
> appear that any others are registered by a private business.  Almost all
> are registered by standards or trade organizations.  RFC 8141 section
> 5.1 suggests that this is intentional:
> 
>     The intent
>     is that, while the community of those who might actively use the URNs
>     assigned within that URN namespace might be small, the potential use
>     of names within that URN namespace is open to any user on the
>     Internet.  Formal URN namespaces might be appropriate even when some
>     aspects are not fully open.  For example, a URN namespace might make
>     use of a fee-based, privately managed, or proprietary registry for
>     assignment of URNs in the URN namespace.  However, it might still
>     benefit some Internet users if the associated services have openly
>     published names.
> 
> On the other hand, there does not appear to be any specific rule against
> a registration that is initially intended to be used almost solely
> within a private business.  And given that there are fewer than 90
> registrations to date, there seems to be no shortage of namespace
> identifiers.  So I recommend that we do not stop this registration due
> to its narrow (initial) intended usage.

You might recall that we had a discussion on this very topic about 10 
years ago, starting here:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/oU0Q5MLm0qMQjWb2Zh0IaOYoAOo/

One suggestion that emerged from that discussion was to use the tag: URI 
scheme (RFC 4151) where possible. This kind of internal usage within a 
private organization doesn't quite seem appropriate for URNs.

Peter