Re: [urn] DOI URN namespace registration

John Levine <> Sun, 24 May 2020 16:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CDEF3A0BA5 for <>; Sun, 24 May 2020 09:50:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.b=a+EbmHfj; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.b=Ke6YiAbR
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id thedDhMikBED for <>; Sun, 24 May 2020 09:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FBEC3A0B9E for <>; Sun, 24 May 2020 09:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 86489 invoked from network); 24 May 2020 16:50:39 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=151d7.5ecaa5df.k2005; bh=PM1GbEf0j0j8zE361ZQ6OGJu0yRU/Ls9L21awm4hke4=; b=a+EbmHfjfIEoVQAGk62yNZ/hOygvZDFKuzhCqzpcapuj7ne8UEorJGDBemK/DQrIJnxyjvsZL7CgjHIjTwiGQDBIQw82sTrhYChutvo/zwdoml2Shfc/de2MUoQmHvWjSkwonehscyyJuBSZ3KCY3uk1RDdji7WqLSQrOfe6mb4KehPHruLDDfU7HNf+z4VvW4FcVl9XzyhYKay1RNPkLFsEwrYuy9YZ6dGrvkxTK/VpOwiZT/8zrLbq/XCKHXcb
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=151d7.5ecaa5df.k2005; bh=PM1GbEf0j0j8zE361ZQ6OGJu0yRU/Ls9L21awm4hke4=; b=Ke6YiAbRvSxbZSAXm5c0ZhVN2SurI5UoQ59vaNiqjwM+znRySswOLg6Tuv+b43ETXVWxAlCIJVaClRnyAeXp413AZ/g511tdCEeinVkm+AtXhEqNRCO7IUpDS7FDMfswkNTU3Uu0Ae7hvvpIzH4yF0EIa4sVwTcXTz72MYz+MCOpTg5K89p26+6riQR6cTna3ak6z+yOelpyMMptIGPZHW9cClJkWDydS9WJHawTaW7JZL/QaXcGUVvTJ2EKVcRE
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 24 May 2020 16:50:38 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id DE61B199447E; Sun, 24 May 2020 12:50:38 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 24 May 2020 12:50:38 -0400
Message-Id: <20200524165038.DE61B199447E@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [urn] DOI URN namespace registration
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 16:50:44 -0000

In article <> you write:
>"Hakala, Juha E" <> writes:
>> [...] I have been asked to write a namespace registration request for
>> DOI, and that may have a major impact on both URN and DOI
>> systems. That request needs to be processed promptly.
>I was going to ask, As an opening question has consideration been given
>to registering DOI as a URI scheme?  My memory is that DOIs are written
>in a format that is compatible with URI syntax.

Well, sort of. DOIs are handles, so the actual format of a DOI is
10.<number>/<LocalName> where the LocalName is arbitrary UTF-8 and is
in practice interpreted by the DOI registration agency that registered
the DOI. Since the Handle protocol never went anywhere, DOIs are now
usually written as URLs using the DOI Foundation's lookup engine:

(The LocalName is an opaque string; in retrospect it was a mistake for
me to assign DOIs to RFCs that look like they mean something.)

Given that DOIs are usually resolved by looking up URLs, it is clear
that in practice they are compatible with URLs because they *are*
URLs. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the Wikipedia article since
any sentence that uses both "Unicode" and "case insensitive" without a
negation in between is by definition wrong.

Also see this, and the following two sections which explain
how to display a DOI as a URI and as a URN:

They say the DOI name 10.123/456 can be written in the form

Beyond the case sensitivity thing which I think is a red herring, I
would ask why they're asking for a DOI URN rather than a handle URN
since they're the same namespace. I think I get the politics, but it
also seems to me that the potential for multiple URN namespaces with
the same contents doesn't seem like a good idea. 

FYI, the server can resolve at least some non-DOI handles such
as the handles assigned to the ITU.  This will get you to the ITU X.509