Re: [urn] [art] URNs and Last Call: <draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02.txt> (URI Design and Ownership) to Best Current Practice

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Wed, 08 January 2020 00:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 018CF120020; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 16:18:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.417
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eprzhI2QcRT4; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 16:18:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0D21120018; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 16:18:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id w21so1872110otj.7; Tue, 07 Jan 2020 16:18:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=KsVsYPYLQE+I76X+hyia3u6/V4SaimYB4tgvgMkBFIg=; b=s+TzLfuLp7ERgKo6bxXmImLC7XCUPicw5hMjoYj8QqSj3WtSmruBY0PuyFd5aPFG3x tB7agE5NCN9yIWMcjYOcRbcq01khCR24F0ugOun+qsJmbbTgOKb2Qe6mPUHqFVI/2vkt RH+rivCqR3v78mTyE+lUWqXPxLhyk3b8i681vXQgxqxFMATGBcbaOyTyFUBlaDmbUNGM w+BjKyhzzogLCuyfkjVnTbsgbomqD9HM3x8Bt7qzagRna8F+7EbOTBaS/ArWXN4TbKTX zhlL7TyAUzdRNq6lO4faGFk8GCizKbGf5WTuLqpZRBXleSIj+PPMM5RjNOzPPLn4JYvv kamw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWozV0ABXK6gVh5QPJOv806qUiYx66ZqvSnLLh/oh4470TRVloF hSeaCxjnntP4n9dQ5vOqzPwJdTMQ95MlL1jL256H/D+K
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzK9pkdVgjhJ5NhspvQeo4oZHQcUrAy9DpjYmbl15A2HT0wXtwWMS5yCwjuu/1SBh5Cw0i07RRxjOsm67x+oNc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1481:: with SMTP id s1mr2229466otq.66.1578442722735; Tue, 07 Jan 2020 16:18:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <87E116C31DAF1434C3C3937F@PSB> <> <29803.1578413742@localhost> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 19:18:31 -0500
Message-ID: <>
To: Christian <>
Cc: "General Area Review Team (" <>,, The IESG <>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c97be0059b95d5ad"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [urn] [art] URNs and Last Call: <draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02.txt> (URI Design and Ownership) to Best Current Practice
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: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 00:18:45 -0000

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:49 PM Christian <> wrote:

> picking up as a post modern fag end...
> On 07/01/2020 19:53, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Resolution of many types of name is inherently ambiguous because the
> context varies.. We cannot resolve a barcode on a physical object like a
> can of beans. But we can ask for information on the can of beans and we can
> order an instance of the can of beans for delivery. And both forms of
> 'location' are going to be subjective and depend on the context in which
> they are attempted.
> I suppose the question is can a schema capture both identifier and locator
> contexts (my plural) unambiguously in all cases?
Definitely not because the identifier interpretation can change over time.
Additional contexts can be added. The identifier may be grandfathered into
a new scheme. It may be abandoned.

> Should I take your post modernist interpretation as saying the answer is
> no - we have to live with ambiguity, even to the extent of the failure to
> resolve one or other or possibly both and do so without breaking wind?
We can deny that the ambiguity exists. We can say the earth is flat as
well. But it won't change anything.

> But given this interpretation what language is needed if URI and URN
> linguistically don't meet the need?
> Or is the other interpretation to offer a list of contexts that work and
> exclude application for the others?
> In which case which is the more useful approach for building real world
> apps and their networks?
I believe that the Internet was founded on the principle of allowing every
user to experiment and to extend. It is thus impossible to enumerate all
possible uses. It is however possible to identify uses that are useful
generally and network effects strongly (unfortunately too strongly)
encourage focusing on common uses.

> It rather kills the idea of hard coded registries for all eventualities I
> think. That I like. As I really like the import of post modernist
> sensibility. This argument is worth something.
> best Christian