[urn] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Uri-review] Request to register the glue URI scheme

[Heather Flanagan <[e-mail]>]

Hello all,

I'd like to extend an invitation to our URI experts to join us at the spice meeting in Vienna (Wednesday, 22 July @ 16:00 CEST) to discuss this in person. We'll have at least 30 minutes to see if we can come to some agreement. If not, we'll pull the doc back into the working group and plan for a longer discussion with you to figure out next steps.

Thanks!

Heather Flanagan (she/hers)
Principal, Spherical Cow Consulting
 [e-mail]
 sphericalcowconsulting.com


On Jun 29, 2026 at 2:43 PM -0700, Brent Zundel <[e-mail]>, wrote:
> I've been following this thread with great interest and not a little
> curiosity.
>
> It seems like there may be some folks who are struggling to understand
> what we are trying to accomplish with GLUE.
>
> Some have pointed out that global business identification is a major
> problem. One which led to the creation of GLEIF, and has led to a number of
> other organizations pursuing URN registration for individual schemes. This
> is laudable. This is good. It may even solve the problem someday, but in my
> estimation those solutions are a long way off. Where we agree is that there
> is a problem and many people are interested in solving it.
>
> One GLEIF statistic I have seen repeated often is that over 3 million
> businesses have obtained an LEI. This is great. It is a wonderful step in
> the right direction, but it is a tiny drop in the bucket of the hundreds of
> millions of businesses and organizations engaged in trade worldwide. GLUE
> enables existing business identifiers to be used in the interim between now
> and whenever in the future those businesses are able to themselves claim an
> LEI or GLN.
>
> Pam pointed out a clear need for additional tools for identifying
> businesses, ones that are long-lasting, and can be used to help keep the
> records being passed about as legible as possible. Some have argued that
> such a mess is clearly not something that a URN scheme is appropriate for.
> Not in my view. The clear organizational potential that is brought to bear
> by the introduction of GLUE identifiers would have a significant impact in
> the clarity and legibility of these currently messy and difficult to read
> documents. They are messy because there isn't a simple scheme that can be
> used to organize them. That is all GLUE aims to be.
>
> Someone mentioned that a global database might be a more appropriate
> solution than an identifier scheme and an accompanying registry of
> authorities. I'm a bit confused what the difference is between a global
> database and an IANA registry, except that an IANA registry is easier to
> find, unburdened by corporate interests, and more likely to be a trusted
> global source of information.
>
> I'm fine if GLEIF or GS1 would prefer they not be listed in the registry,
> since they have their own URN schemes, but such a determination to not be
> involved completely misses the point. Demanding to be removed from GLUE is
> like the producers of some informative reference demanding it be removed
> from another specification that wishes to refer to it. Supporters of GLUE
> are supporters of the great efforts being made by GLEIF and GS1. GLUE is an
> attempt to make it even easier to use those identifier schemes in digital
> trade credentials, alongside the myriad other business and organization
> identifiers that are in use today.
>
> GLUE is not a business registry. It claims no authority for determining the
> realities of business registration beyond the those already possessed by
> the authorities themselves. GLUE is just a slightly different way to format
> the existing identifiers, one that is consistent with the requirements of
> digital identity and trade modernization schemes. It is paired with what we
> hope will someday be an expansive registry of organization identifier
> authorities. There is no registration scheme too small to fit inside GLUE.
>
> But, it seems to me like all of that may be beside the point. GLUE isn't
> some random individual draft out of nowhere. GLUE was been adopted by an
> IETF working group. That working group reviewed and refined the ideas in
> GLUE over years. The specification found working group consensus and passed
> working group last call. To my understanding it even passed IESG review.
> All that is left is to register the identifier scheme.
>
> There have been ample examples shared in this thread and others, ones I am
> not going to reiterate, that make it seem as though the designated experts
> are holding GLUE to a higher bar for URN or URI registration than other
> schemes have been held. I don't believe that the experts are acting
> inappropriately. I applaud their caution, but encourage them to act and
> register GLUE.
>
> GLUE is not going to break the internet. If its detractors are correct, and
> GLUE sees little to no use in industry, then it would certainly not be the
> first IETF specification to meet such a fate.
> I don't think they are right. I think GLUE can have a positive impact on
> the disgusting mess that is global business and organization identification