Re: [urn] Some initial thoughts on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-02

Alfred Hönes <ah@TR-Sys.de> Tue, 24 January 2012 14:38 UTC

Return-Path: <A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.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 47C7021F8551 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:38:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.192, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 JWbSMZdeJdMV for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:38:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD74F21F8550 for <urn@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:38:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA189585829; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:37:09 +0100
Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id PAA01961; Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:37:08 +0100 (MEZ)
From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= <ah@TR-Sys.de>
Message-Id: <201201241437.PAA01961@TR-Sys.de>
To: bengt.neiss@kb.se
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:37:08 +0100 (MEZ)
In-Reply-To: <F52230A186DA59469E8E21CF80FE6D4D0F23DF06@SRVVM305.kb.local> from Bengt Neiss at Jan "24, " 2012 "10:42:40" am
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] Some initial thoughts on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-02
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <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, 24 Jan 2012 14:38:02 -0000

[[ speaking as co-author and document editor of the rfc3188bis I-D ]]


At 2012-01-24, Bengt Neiss wrote:

> Hello all..
>
> Just some initial thoughts on the new text...
>
>
> 1.  In chapter 4.2. "Encoding Considerations...." the
> expressions "primary prefix" as well as "secondary prefix" are
> introduced.  I think we need to rephrase this since "prefix" is
> the expression used otherwise in text.  As it is written now there
> is a sentence that states that the NSS consists of three parts and
> then there is a list with four "parts"... (might be better as
> "primary part of prefix", "secondary part of prefix" which occurs
> in occurs in other places text).  I think it should be similar to
> the text in "Declaration of syntactic structure..." on page 12 - 13.

We will look into this and straighten up the text in the next
draft version.

(The related text has undergone a lot of changes due to the dropping
of the non-ISO 3166 prefixes, and admittedly the changes for this
effort and the effort to better align the text in the registration
template with the expanded prose have collided a bit.)


> 2.  The sentence "Future NBN implementations SHOULD make the NBN
> string case insensitive as well".  Is this a relevant statement?
> Since it seems to be that the nbn_string may be case-sensitive
> depending on syntax applied locally (ie.  already implemented) and
> URN:s are persistent the case-sensitivity of the nbn_string must
> always be taken into consideration...

The intent here was to refer to new usages of URN:NBNs, i.e.
national libraries and institutions that newly establish and/or
formalize NBNs and build national support services for URN:NBN
for their ISO 3166 URN:NBN prefix.

So there should not be backwards compatibility issues at the URN
level, but of course legacy NBN usage within the scope of the
future adoptors needs to be addressed, which might lead to a
legitimate exemption of the "SHOULD" quoted above.

Question to the list:
  Would you prefer to drop the quoted "SHOULD" recommendation ?


> 3.  I think there is a need to work further on defining
> restrictions or evaluate the consequences of the current text.
> Will make a new post on some issues later..

We are waiting for all kind of thoughts and text proposals!


> Regards
>
> //Bengt
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Bengt Neiss
> Kungl.  Biblioteket / National Library of Sweden
> Phone:  +46 (0)10 709 35 41


Kind regards,
  Alfred.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  ah@TR-Sys.de                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+