Internet Info 1997 December/Internet_Info_CD-ROM_Walnut_Creek_December_1997.iso/ietf/urn/urn-archives/urn-ietf.archive.9710/000004_owner-urn-ietf _Fri Oct 24 10:57:38 1997.msg

Internet Message Format | 1997-10-28 | 6KB

Received: (from daemon@localhost)
    by services.bunyip.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA21743
    for urn-ietf-out; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:57:38 -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 KAA21729
    for <[e-mail]>; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:57:33 -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 KAA01725;
    Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:55:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (leslie@localhost) by beethoven.bunyip.com (8.6.9/8.6.10) with SMTP id KAA04848; Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:55:26 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: beethoven.bunyip.com: leslie owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 10:55:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Leslie Daigle <[e-mail]>
To: Dan Connolly <[e-mail]>
cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: [URN] Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs
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]

Dan,

I think you can address some of your concerns/questions with a visit
to the IETF's URN working group homepage:

    http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/urn-charter.html

One specific document you don't seem to have been aware of is the URN syntax
standards-track RFC (RFC2141).

I won't speak directly to the issue of whether or not the W3C documents
should refer to URIs or URLs, but there are some specific issues about
URNs that you brought up that I would like to address.

On Thu, 23 Oct 1997, Dan Connolly wrote:

> don't reflect that. The IANA registry[1] claims to be
> a URL scheme registry, rather than a URI scheme
> registry. So I wonder... is it expected that urn: will
> appear in that registry?

Not necessarily.  URNs as they are currently being discussed will have
need for scheme registration procedures that are different than those of
URLs -- specifically because URNs aim to (attempt to) provide uniqueness
and longevity, and also incur some overhead in maintaining registries.
This is a very key issue, brought up at the Munich URN meeting, and
hopefully we'll have concrete proposals on the table by Washington.

> And the terms URN and URI either invoke warm fuzzies, cold
> pricklies, or blank stares, but no hands-on understanding.

By the way, I think this depends on who you talk to.  Various people
in publishing and national libraries around the world are clamouring
for URNs.

>      Iana maintains a registry of schemes which includes mid:
>      and cid:. If those are URL schemes, then everything is a
>      URL. Else, what IANA maintains is a UR*I* registry

IANA currently maintains a URL registry.

>      Does the process draft cover all URIs or just some?
>      ("URLs" as of Aug 97) (See Roy's page for latest
>      process/syntax draft)

URLs only.

It has been developed for URLs, and independently of the needs of URNs,
so if it wants to become the URI process draft, further discussion is
needed.

>      Does the syntax draft cover all URIs or just some? (
>      "URLs" as of Aug 97)

URLs.  URNs are discussed in RFC2141.  The syntaxes are intended to be
compatible.

>      Syntax draft says "URIs are covered by other specs".
>      What other specs?

RFC2141

>     spec about URLs, URIs, and URNs, and we
>     cite RFC1738 and RFC1808 normatively,
>     and RFC1630 informatively.

Throw in RFC2141.

> I request clear guidance on whether
>     (1) we can expect the IANA registry to become
>     known as a URI registry, with the corresponding
>     change in the syntax and process documents.

I don't think this is appropriate, as these documents are truly URL
documents, and haven't been developed in conjunction with the URN
material.

Whether or not there should eventually _be_ umbrella documents is
a separate question.

>     (2) we can expect the IANA registry to continue
>     to be known as a URL registry, in which case I
>     request that the term URI be declared historical
>     in the syntax/process drafts,
>     and that any mention of URN set an expectation
>     that the urn scheme (or schemes) will go in
>     the URL registry.

I don't think it would be appropriate to declare this at this time; the
URN work is real, and it has different needs than the URL registry/process.

As I said -- check out the URN WG page and the associated RFCs.  We
are working on sorting out what _should_ be appropriate registration
processes for URN namespaces (analoguous to but different than URL schemes)
as that is one outstanding issue that stops URNs from going live.

Leslie.
IETF URN WG Co-Chair

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

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