Internet Info 1997 December/Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso/ietf/urn/urn-archives/urn-ietf.archive.9703/000063_owner-urn-ietf _Thu Mar 27 09:47:39 1997.msg

Internet Message Format | 1997-04-01 | 4KB

Received: (from daemon@localhost)
    by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA13219
    for urn-ietf-out; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:47:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1])
    by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA13210
    for <[e-mail]>; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:47:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from windrose.omaha.ne.us by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b)
        id AA07113  (mail destined for [e-mail]); Thu, 27 Mar 97 09:47:34 -0500
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Received: by privateer.windrose.omaha.ne.us; Thu Mar 27 08:47 CST 1997
From: "Ryan Moats" <[e-mail]>
To: "Patrik Faltstrom" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Renato Iannella" <[e-mail]>,
        "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 97 08:50:23
Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: PMMail 1.91 For OS/2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [URN] My $0.02 on draft-ietf-urn-nid-req-01.txt
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Ryan Moats" <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]

While I somewhat agree with Erik, I have some slightly different takes
on this document (and therefore suggestions on where to go).  Having
set up a test URN resolver (more about this in Memphis), I have
been starting to think about what it would take to register such a beast.

First of all, I think it would be a good thing if there were an Appendix
giving a form that (when filled in) could be submitted to IANA or the
RFC editor to handle the registration of namespace identifiers.
This is based on going through the other drafts and noting
what has been put off to the namespace identifier registration document.

This form MUST include the following things:

    1. The namespace identifier name.
    2. A BNF specification of the NSS syntax
    3. A definition of what characters are reserved (in addition
    to those characters in the URN Syntax draft) and should
    be %encoded if used literally.
    4. A definition of additional lexical equivalence relations
    above and beyond those in the URN Syntax draft.
    5. A definition of what addition functional equivalence relations (to the
    lexical equivalence relations specified in the URN Syntax draft)
    6. A specification of which RDS will be used

This form SHOULD include the following things:

    A. If the NAPTR RDS is used, primary and secondary
    nameservers for the <nid>.urn.net domain so that the NAPTR
    records for <nid>.urn.net are maintained locally by the namespace
    provider.
    B. Security consideration that might result from the use of additional
    reserved characters in #3 above.

Thinking about the whole concept of a "nid requirements document",
should this just be about requirements or should it be about registration
process?  I bring this up because my current thoughts on the registration
process look something like the following, although as far as I can tell
it hasn't been documented/discussed anywhere:

    - somebody fills out the registration template for <nid> and sends
      it to IANA
    - IANA approves/rejects the template
    - if the template is approved AND the NAPTR RDS will be used
      ?somebody? (who?) puts the appropriate information into DNS
      for <NID>.urn.net [This question boils down to: "who admisters
      the urn.net domain"?]

Well, that's my $0.02 worth for now.  See everybody in Memphis (where
I think a bar WG on NID registration might not be a bad idea).

Ryan