Re: [urn] DOI URN namespace registration

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Sun, 24 May 2020 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 BB9293A0B90 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2020 09:27:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g2zLvHDb60AU for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 May 2020 09:27:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E9443A0B8F for <urn@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 May 2020 09:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) 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 <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>, urn@ietf.org
Message-ID: <CFB852B7C9643D55965A2637@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <87ftbpl3mh.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
References: <87ftbpl3mh.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
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-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/yHtwBA3N5dQsTCDzrWB00r-0k0s>
Subject: Re: [urn] DOI URN namespace registration
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 24 May 2020 16:27:59 -0000


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

> "Hakala, Juha E" <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi> 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
https://www.doi.org/... and the disadvantage that many or most
web browsers have seemed reluctant to incorporate new URI
schemes.
 
> 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.

Indeed.

best,
   john