IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Sat, 19 April 2014 21:19 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.com>
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 EE92B1A00FA; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 8CJMydaS6ukV; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:19:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x229.google.com (mail-ob0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC1831A00F4; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id uz6so560211obc.14 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=BI3BYlVC4lq/Bk+hkDDA+69Ibb5wiB60ySj/oYF5O0Q=; b=0yBh7CKQSimAbCkvL5tPO2glee2cPR4nfJffPynmgC4G0NL8sEc43K/TS2bcfRPUe1 vf+5AN+goNb9mtaFqPEtPJYiIbfTE61/y42mn0qTj2T6I/E650/AfkbtP1LpdkJBB/Ps rzJTDw6n7/5fWXMM/00zCPRTMbnW52+RWhKC2kPJ/OXEt8MZncsu+WAD7AJrx3lArRYJ jDtjxwM8lO29CD9J0pvOvsuwjS5/3MTh0RdrGy7mE4nJlTc65UqMyoEdCIYWmhVtvwu+ 3AV0mDwN2mG9PCj7Q2IYBcp1vIBqp/zrr0RauHIVOogRyqb0kdGcb8/Fr783T7y07TBb OnWQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.225.194 with SMTP id rm2mr3635924obc.49.1397942337470; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.183.6.196 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.183.6.196 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 14:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALcoZioKSLxtK9APfmSqQaKWSMWFSmeiwdrsndd0v2cEnbqmKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C93A34DBE97565AD96CEC321@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAMm+Lwia99RdyO4RFScSwCaVHLsr_BRzmXK18eUoxGFti79Vog@mail.gmail.com> <001976FFC9FE8FFCAA2E7990@JCK-EEE10> <CAMm+Lwiz1nyT6khGqa693E8Tq9Srrd3kaETRN=K0NUq-SsX1Vw@mail.gmail.com> <534FE7BC.4070002@gmx.de> <CAMm+Lwjr1dmGoKRVRvmX1fxettWEyx6sm88Ry4Ri4fzJf0ZA8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOh_aGr8CPpK+1x3_MgAGF9khMB4sxXoPGBD6GAjyUGrEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwh+RV8FfaM+R8UA9--JHkb7V2gnj0N1ZCQ_RL6LMhcoAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALcoZioKSLxtK9APfmSqQaKWSMWFSmeiwdrsndd0v2cEnbqmKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 17:18:57 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPv4CP9WwrGAgAnU5fcbpiULQxTmd3n8wSxzEFzmkdMqdpZHzA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2ef1c7105f704f76bd0a8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/pBpZRDTFGkOzZtsYJEeRx8u0ymE
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, urn@ietf.org, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, General discussion of application-layer protocols <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: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 21:19:04 -0000

The inverse way of looking this is that identity-related functions can use
anything they want since they can treat it opaquely ... and do ... while
location-related functions are limited to tokens they understand the
semantics of.
On Apr 18, 2014 11:20 AM, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > We can certainly use URIs. The issue here is whether we claim it has
> > 'name like' semantics or 'locator like'.
>
> Whether it's a name or a locator is not an intrinsic property of the
> string, but depends solely upon the presence or absence of a local
> resolution mechanism for that string.
>
> A string that *you* might *today* call a "name", might already be a
> "locator" to somebody who's rigged a private resolution service. Ten years
> from now, that "name" might be a "locator" to all of us.
>
> Mark.
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email