RE: draft-masinter-dated-uri-00.txt

# Do you plan to publish this as an RFC?

Not without more evidence of likely use.

#There's a typo in the paragraph beginning:
#	So "urn:duri:2001:http://www.ietf.org" can be used to designate the
#	Internet Engineering Task Force organization...
#You need to s/duri/tdb/

Yes, thanks

# In lieu of 
# <urn:duri:19990114:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names> you may 
# want to cite <http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114>. 
# Can you explain why you didn't?

Well, the latter depends on the good graces of the webmaster
of www.w3.org to not fool around and decide that, for example,
"1999" should come before "TR" instead of after.

It's one thing to urge webmasters to not move content around,
and it's quite another to build systems that break if they don't
listen and do.

# Using:
#         urn:duri:2000:urn:ietf:std:50
# to refer to "the document that was STD 50 that was in effect as 
# of the first instant of 2000" seems problematic to me, since 
# that URN represented the same resource in 2000 as it would at 
# any other time, namely the IETF STD 50 document. You seem to be 
# implying that the use of duri changes the semantics of the 
# resource involved. Is this so?

The IETF explicitly reassigns the numbers in the STD series as
documents get updated, and doesn't reassign RFC numbers. The
use of "duri" doesn't change the semantics of the resource, just
of the reference. It fixes the reference in time. At the beginning
of 2000, "urn:ietf:std:50" referred to RFC 1643. If the RFC
gets updated, STD 50 will be a different document, but
urn:duri:2000:urn:ietf:std:50 will refer to the same document
it did in 2000.

Larry

Received on Sunday, 26 August 2001 03:52:57 UTC