IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [urn] [apps-discuss] URNs are not URIs (another look at RFC 3986)

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 17 April 2014 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 0C62C1A01C5; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] autolearn=no
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 PrbqMIkJvi1l; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C401A01C2; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:21:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BA161DE05D; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=6x8IjIYhGdbbi94KApu9 6SeAbbA=; b=o7XRfmapPZdSTFeWQ72fO6lbq5zoL1OLQ2HN9iI5EHJ9aA6GneEM vZrAiNdTTbck5Ck+xo/HDTFZNa3wa5JnUHH1YowvOFk4gd2tH8czeqJblNS+853A jG/NV/m+3nEGOIad0X0wAN9S+vLNnf5SsArZ1bTi1D7qwmUQ66aXGf8=
Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com (mail-we0-f174.google.com [74.125.82.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a84.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C28B91DE059; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id t60so659544wes.33 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.160.166 with SMTP id xl6mr13028260wib.42.1397751664347; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.29.200 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwjr1dmGoKRVRvmX1fxettWEyx6sm88Ry4Ri4fzJf0ZA8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C93A34DBE97565AD96CEC321@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAMm+Lwia99RdyO4RFScSwCaVHLsr_BRzmXK18eUoxGFti79Vog@mail.gmail.com> <001976FFC9FE8FFCAA2E7990@JCK-EEE10> <CAMm+Lwiz1nyT6khGqa693E8Tq9Srrd3kaETRN=K0NUq-SsX1Vw@mail.gmail.com> <534FE7BC.4070002@gmx.de> <CAMm+Lwjr1dmGoKRVRvmX1fxettWEyx6sm88Ry4Ri4fzJf0ZA8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:21:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOh_aGr8CPpK+1x3_MgAGF9khMB4sxXoPGBD6GAjyUGrEw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/lhpJSIImESigU8t3hlVulOY4CjM
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:31:32 -0700
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, urn@ietf.org, General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [urn] [apps-discuss] URNs are not URIs (another look at RFC 3986)
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: <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: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:21:14 -0000

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2014-04-16 20:58, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>>> The real difference is that a URL must contains a DNS name and a URN
>>> probably does not.
>>> ...
>>
>> Not true. It doesn't need to be a DNS name.
>
> Why bother with anything else? Its all legacy now or going to be soon
> enough. X.500 has never been a viable directory. Telephone numbers are
> the only other widespread locator.

With the caveat that "DNS name" need not be the same as a hostname
(FQDN).  It might be a domainname for use as starting point for
service location.

Can we use URLs for geocaching?  For locating resources on satellites?  ..

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email