Internet Info 1997 December/Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso/ietf/urn/urn-archives/urn-ietf.archive.9707/000012_owner-urn-ietf _Tue Jul 29 23:28:09 1997.msg

Internet Message Format | 1997-07-31 | 4KB

Received: (from daemon@localhost)
    by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA04013
    for urn-ietf-out; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 23:28:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1])
    by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA04008
    for <[e-mail]>; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 23:28:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from beethoven.bunyip.com (beethoven.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.5])
    by mocha.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA25935;
    Tue, 29 Jul 1997 23:27:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (leslie@localhost) by beethoven.bunyip.com (8.6.9/8.6.10) with SMTP id XAA24857; Tue, 29 Jul 1997 23:27:57 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: beethoven.bunyip.com: leslie owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 23:27:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Leslie Daigle <[e-mail]>
To: Terry Allen <[e-mail]>
cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [URN] Re std-, prv-
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Leslie Daigle <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]

On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Terry Allen wrote:
> | > connotations. How about something like "r<digits>-", where the
> | > R stands for "registered" and the digits let us deal with multiple
> | > requests for a particular namespace ID? The ever-popular "foo"
> | > NID would have r1-foo, r2-foo, r3-foo, etc.
> |
> | And would the "r" number be dropped for namespaces that had gone through
> | the full standardization process?
>
> Either way I'm confused.  Do we need to do this?  Why?  I didn't find
> a clear reason in the straw proposal.

Sheer number of expected namespaces.  We aren't (yet?) ready to codify
an objective checklist for the IANA to independently approve the technical
merit of all of them, let alone potential legal implications of who
can/cannot have a namespace.  So, the proposal is to split the problem:
there will be those that have been given detailed scrutiny by the IETF
(through RFC path, at least initially), and those that spring into
existence, perhaps initially for private consumption and then more
public.  This is an approach with a precident:  registering MIME types
(I am told) includes a "vnd" subtree of the naming in which individual
vendors are free to do what they want.

In order to be globally accessible, all namespaces must have some registration
in the global NID, so there will be (I expect) IETF-standardized ones
registered there, as well as less formally-standardized ones.

> How about, standardized name space IDs are those registered in the
> appropriate registry, and all others are nonstandardized?

First of all, this isn't by default the global NID registry for the
reasons above -- the definition of that would have to change to include
something like a "standardize/not standardized" flag.

Or, it could be a separate registry of standardized names, although
my gut reaction is that this starts to be a field of blooming registries...

In general, personally,  I prefer to have things immediately and objectively
identifiable -- if you (or your software) is dealling with an "R-??"
namespace, it implicitly makes a statement about the effort the
namespace owner has made to standardize and preserve the namespace.
(No, it's not a hard and fast rule -- we've already agreed there
are things we simply cannot enforce).

Cheers!
Leslie.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  "_Be_                                           Leslie Daigle
             where  you
                          _are_."                 Bunyip Information Systems
                                                  [phone]
                      -- ThinkingCat              [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------