Re: [URN] Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs

=?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst?= (
Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:28:53 +0100 (MET)

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 21:28:53 +0100 (MET)
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst?= <>
To: Leslie Daigle <>
cc: Dan Connolly <>,,,
Subject: Re: [URN] Re: The UR* scheme registry, Citing URL/URI specs
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>

On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, Leslie Daigle wrote:

> Well, there are 2 separate questions on the table:
> 	1.  Does "URN:" appear in this registry as one UR{I|L} scheme?
> 	2.  Do URN namespaces (i.e., that part that appears after the URN:
> 	    e.g., urn:ietf:<blah>) get registered in that registry.  You
> 	    suggest not; Larry later suggested he thought they ought.

> #2 is a definite "no"; URN namespaces are _not_ just like URL schemes.  THey
> have implications of ownership, maintaingin registries and validation
> services, and a whole set of requirements centred on uniqueness, etc.  I'm
> sorry to be so vague here -- this is exactly the part that the URN WG
> is trying to nail down now (and if I could be less vague, I'd be halfway
> to having the I-D written :-)

I guess what will happen is that URN namespaces will be registered in
a separate registry, but in a registry that will be kept in close
coordination with the URL scheme registry. Should IANA for some
reason not qualify as the top URN registry maintainer (they maintain
a lot of other stuff, so I don't know why they wouldn't, but anyway),
it would definitely be a good idea to have them keep a "shadow
registration" reflecting the registered URNs for further reference.

Regards,	Martin.