Re: [urn] DOI URN namespace registration

John C Klensin <> Sun, 24 May 2020 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB9293A0B90 for <>; Sun, 24 May 2020 09:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g2zLvHDb60AU for <>; Sun, 24 May 2020 09:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E9443A0B8F for <>; Sun, 24 May 2020 09:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1jctTe-0003j4-0T; Sun, 24 May 2020 12:27:54 -0400
Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 12:27:48 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <>,
Message-ID: <CFB852B7C9643D55965A2637@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [urn] DOI URN namespace registration
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: Sun, 24 May 2020 16:27:59 -0000

--On Sunday, May 24, 2020 12:05 -0400 "Dale R. Worley"
<> wrote:

> "Hakala, Juha E" <> writes:
>> [...] I have been asked to write a namespace registration
>> request for DOI, and that may have a major impact on both URN
>> and DOI systems. That request needs to be processed promptly.
> I was going to ask, As an opening question has consideration
> been given to registering DOI as a URI scheme?  My memory is
> that DOIs are written in a format that is compatible with URI
> syntax.

Not quite.  And the Authority bit of URIs/URLs gets complicated,
complicated enough to pose little advantage over and the disadvantage that many or most
web browsers have seemed reluctant to incorporate new URI
> But the Wikipedia page says "Most legal Unicode characters are
> allowed in these strings, which are interpreted in a
> case-insensitive manner." So DOI syntax is not compatible with
> URI syntax.  And what "case insensitive" means in a fully
> internationalized context is (in my memory) not well-defined.

Your memory is correct except that "no well-defined" may be too
polite.   And that "most legal..." language is a problem (one
that, IIR, Juha and I have discussed).

> So yes, there are going to be some complexities.