Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-saintandre-urn-example-00

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 17 August 2012 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8F7121F84DD for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.678, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I3lF34oQGrqJ for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AA92521F8499 for <urn@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2012 12:09:05 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.140]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp038) with SMTP; 17 Aug 2012 14:09:05 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+DzYY6dGyDWUtNrMi8zSinu75OZQWZ0Yc0KjFj4W 3zKfVe3tknRZM1
Message-ID: <502E3460.209@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:09:04 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
References: <201208162101.XAA08756@TR-Sys.de> <502DF26E.3050406@gmx.de> <502E31B0.8000500@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <502E31B0.8000500@network-heretics.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-saintandre-urn-example-00
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 17 Aug 2012 12:09:12 -0000

On 2012-08-17 13:57, Keith Moore wrote:
> ...
> I don't actually have a problem with UUID URNs in principle, so long as
> the mechanisms used to generate UUIDs actually ensure that they're
> unique. (If memory serves, they do, but it's been awhile since I've read
> the spec).   As long as people use UUID URNs to refer to resources, such
> usage is perfectly consistent with the intended purpose of URNs.  And I
> certainly am not suggesting that UUID URNs be deprecated, or any thing
> similarly disruptive.
>
> The problem I have is with the idea that has emerged that if you need an
> ID that happens to be a URI, a URN is the right thing to use.   I've
> seen a lot of things labeled "urn:" that didn't refer to resources, or
> worse, weren't unique at all, apparently because of this idea.
> ...

Do you have a definition of "resource" different from:

"the term "resource" is used in a general sense for whatever might be 
identified by a URI" -- 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.1.1>

?


Other than that, I agree about the uniqueness bit.

Best regards, Julian