Re: [urn] Finalizing items from IETF 83

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 03 July 2012 19:20 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 D800F11E80CB for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.083
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.083 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.484, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id prcA5B-pM8j7 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BF29B11E8195 for <urn@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 03 Jul 2012 19:20:25 -0000
Received: from p5DD96484.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.217.100.132] by mail.gmx.net (mp010) with SMTP; 03 Jul 2012 21:20:25 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/8N8EX7Hz8f3vuKxjn/z2vQ+8rpme1y5s3YFLo7U HbQmPdTcGUfijE
Message-ID: <4FF345F5.5080300@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 21:20:21 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <234FA8E3-C00D-4DA9-AD6C-41A3AC2548E4@hxr.us> <4FEBF708.9030604@helsinki.fi> <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EF246915EE@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE> <4FEC2B8C.4070604@gmx.de> <4FF344A9.9090501@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4FF344A9.9090501@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [urn] Finalizing items from IETF 83
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: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 19:20:20 -0000

On 2012-07-03 21:14, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 6/28/12 4:01 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2012-06-28 11:42, Svensson, Lars wrote:
>>> Juha wrote:
>>>
>>>> But
>>>> I hope that RFC2141bis will say at least that fragments are not part of
>>>> the NSS but they can be used in those namespaces which specifically
>>>> allow that.
>>>
>>> I'll second that RFC 2141bis says that fragment identifiers are
>>> allowed in URNs but that they are not part of the NSS. Further, RFCs
>>> for new namespaces must specify if they allow the use of fragment
>>> identifiers or not but I guess that is something for RFC 3406bis.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Namespace specifications define the namespace-specific part; nothing
>> else. Fragment syntax and semantics are defined by RFC 3986.
>>
>> A spec *can* point out that the URN does not identify something from
>> which a payload + media type can be retrieved, in which fragment
>> identifiers are not applicable. But that's different from disallowing them.
>
> Julian, by "spec" here do you mean a specification for a particular
> namespace identifier? ...

Yes

> ...(And would one result be that each NID spec would
> need to specify whether URNs issued within that NID identify entities
> from which a payload + media type can be retrieved?)

I'd prefer those specification to be simply silent on the issue, or 
alternatively that the URN spec contains a clarification the NID 
specifications can simply reference.

Best regards, Julian