W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2003

RE: DOI and the non-IETF tree

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 09:46:49 -0700
To: "'Paskin, Norman (DOI-ELS)'" <n.paskin@doi.org>, uri@w3.org
Cc: braden@ISI.EDU, doi-twg@doi.org, rawg@doi.org, iesg@ietf.org
Message-id: <006301c373cd$4da2a320$6401a8c0@MasinterT40>

> Additionally we were recommended to follow up the non-IETF tree
> recommendation with Larry Masinter, and were pointed to
> http://larry.masinter.net/vndurl.txt which proposes two 
> non-IETF URI trees vnd- and prs-, to be used  for the following:
> "In the development of new products, vendors often have the need
> to use URIs to identify and locate
> resources in a manner that is NOT seen by end users, is not widely
> distributed, or for some other reason does not justify the effort to
> register a scheme name from the IETF tree."   That proposal 
> that a non-IETF identifier should be so restricted is not appropriate
> DOIs, which are seen by end users and which are widely distributed in
a large open
> community.

I think that you're saying that you don't like the
'vnd-' tree because you think the scope recommended
in it is broad enough.

I think it's simple to change the scope statement.
RFC 2048, when talking about the 'vnd' tree for MIME
types, merely says:

   The vendor tree is used for media types associated with commercially
   available products.  "Vendor" or "producer" are construed as
   equivalent and very broadly in this context.

   A registration may be placed in the vendor tree by anyone who has
   need to interchange files associated with the particular product.
   However, the registration formally belongs to the vendor or
   organization producing the software or file format.  Changes to the
   specification will be made at their request, as discussed in
   subsequent sections.

   While public exposure and review of media types to be registered in
   the vendor tree is not required, using the ietf-types list for review
   is strongly encouraged to improve the quality of those
   specifications. Registrations in the vendor tree may be submitted
   directly to the IANA.

If the wording in the 'vndurl' draft is changed to be more
neutral about the context of use, would that eliminate
this particular objection to the use of vnd-doi?
Received on Friday, 5 September 2003 12:49:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:06 UTC