IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> Fri, 18 April 2014 07:43 UTC

Return-Path: <GK@ninebynine.org>
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 8C7C01A024A; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 00:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.86
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.86 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_24_48=1.34, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 6wOH3sMn6KN4; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 00:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay15.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay15.mail.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.163]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BD6E1A019A; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 00:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.mail.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.205]) by relay15.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1Wb3SS-0005A9-ob; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:43:36 +0100
Received: from gklyne.plus.com ([80.229.154.156] helo=conina.local) by smtp2.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1Wb3SS-0007qQ-7Q; Fri, 18 Apr 2014 08:43:36 +0100
Message-ID: <534F4321.2020802@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 03:57:37 +0100
From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
References: <C93A34DBE97565AD96CEC321@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <534BED18.9090009@gmx.de> <3D39F1AA700A179F3C051DE2@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <534D3410.50607@ninebynine.org> <54ecc96adba240159cf624c54c507136@BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <54ecc96adba240159cf624c54c507136@BL2PR02MB307.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/mH4Ah6oGNZ6TvQ_FFJmG6TX4a8U
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 07:00:47 -0700
Cc: "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <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: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 07:43:50 -0000

On 15/04/2014 17:25, Larry Masinter wrote:
> Is it time to revive http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri  and finally get it to RFC?

I think so.

But I also don't see sufficient head of unrequited need to get this progressed 
as a standards action.  YMMV.

My suggestion would be to request informational, maybe ISE, RFC publication with 
provisional URI scheme registrations.  That creates an available and persistent 
(sic) reference that developers might think about using if it meets a need (e.g. 
in Memento [1] implementations?).  Then, if it does become widely used, there's 
a ready point of departure for a standards action.

#g
--

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7089

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email