Re: [URN] draft-ietf-urn-nid-req-01.txt

Patrik Faltstrom (paf@swip.net)
Fri, 28 Mar 1997 09:33:14 +0100 (MET)


To: urn-ietf@bunyip.com
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [URN] draft-ietf-urn-nid-req-01.txt
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 02:21:28 -0600
Message-Id: <333B7F88.914876B@w3.org>
To: Patrik Faltstrom <paf@swip.net>, uri@bunyip.com, ietf-url@imc.org

I'm trying to get up to speed on all the UR* drafts
and such for Memphis. Some of this stuff is pretty exciting
(NAPTR and RRs and all that) but some of it is confusing.

First of all, what's the relationship between mailing
lists and charters?
	urn-ietf@bunyip.com -> 
		http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/urn-charter.html
	uri@bunyip.com -->
		??? (defunct URI WG; anything else?)
	ietf-url@imc.org
		??? (new URL syntax/process WG? Is this
		a real WG? It's not listed at:
		http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html)

Now... about this document:

Patrik Faltstrom wrote:
> draft-ietf-urn-nid-req-01.txt 
>             Namespace Identifier Requirements for URN Services

> Introduction:
> =============
> 
> The Uniform Resource Name (URN) Working Group has defined mechanisms
> for both the syntax [4] and resolution of URNs [1,2]. An framework
> for URN discovery systems has also been outlined [3]. This draft
> discusses and recommends the requirements for entities that wish
> to act as Namespace Identifiers (NIDs) within the URN system.

Making new NIDs seems exactly analagous to the process of making
new URL schemes.

Compare with:

------------
http://www.imc.org/draft-masinter-url-process
   This document provides guidelines for the definition of new URL
   schemes and describes the process by which they are registered.
------------

Is it really necessary/useful to go through this exercise twice?


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C Architecture Domain Lead
<connolly@w3.org> +1 512 310-2971
http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
PGP:EDF8 A8E4 F3BB 0F3C FD1B 7BE0 716C FF21
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 09:33:14 +0100 (MET)
From: Patrik Faltstrom <paf@swip.net>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: uri@bunyip.com, ietf-url@imc.org, urn-ietf@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: [URN] draft-ietf-urn-nid-req-01.txt
In-Reply-To: <333B7F88.914876B@w3.org>
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970328093057.12871J-100000@nix.swip.net>

On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Dan Connolly wrote:

> > Introduction:
> > =============
> > 
> > The Uniform Resource Name (URN) Working Group has defined mechanisms
> > for both the syntax [4] and resolution of URNs [1,2]. An framework
> > for URN discovery systems has also been outlined [3]. This draft
> > discusses and recommends the requirements for entities that wish
> > to act as Namespace Identifiers (NIDs) within the URN system.
> 
> Making new NIDs seems exactly analagous to the process of making
> new URL schemes.
>
> Compare with:
> 
> ------------
> http://www.imc.org/draft-masinter-url-process
>    This document provides guidelines for the definition of new URL
>    schemes and describes the process by which they are registered.
> ------------

I think I and Renato should have looked at this document closer before
typing in the text we wrote. I think personally that the process can be
handled the same way. I.e. handle a new NID as a new URL-scheme.

> Is it really necessary/useful to go through this exercise twice?

A namespace is definitely not the same thing as a URL scheme. Two
different things, but the _process_ can be similar, just like the
processes defined for MIME-types.

    Patrik