RE: [Uri-review] the "ni:" URI scheme soon to "last call" in IETF -- security concern

I said "credible SLA" and I agree that wasn't good terminology. Let me rewrite it:

"Persistence" and "Permanently" are acts of intention -- a name is "persistent" or "permanent" if there is a credible expectation of future resolution services, where the services are reasonably expected to maintain authority (forever) for telling everyone what a name means or identifies, consistent with the current intended meaning.

And my point is that there often _aren't_ explicit guarantees, because the notion of "persistent names" is dubious.

http://masinter.blogspot.com/2010/03/ozymandias-uri.html

Taking your examples:

- The RFC series

There are enough copies of current RFCs around that I understand how you could imagine the 'meaning' of RFC1024 was independent of any authority. However, (a) IETF might change its official publication format, and possibly even republish old RFCs in new formats. It is under the authority of the IETF to determine whether a new format is the "same". (b) IETF also maintains a "BCP" and "STD" series numbers to name documents which have achieved a particular status, and the IETF has the authority to change the designation of BCP70 to a new document. (c) Efforts are underway to reformulate internet governance under UN ITU-T rather than ISOC, ICANN, IETF.  Changes in organization might ultimately lead to changes in policy. It isn't impossible to imagine a new system Internet governance changing the rules, e.g., decide it was legitimate to "republish" RFCs and correct "errors" in them. 

If the rules change to allow RFCs to be updated, then there is then a question of whether a statement asserting something about "RFC1024" was about the old edition vs. the new one.

  - The IANA registries
Similarly for IANA registries, IANA maintains the process by which individuals are allowed (or not allowed) to update an IANA registry entry, depending on review as defined. So the organization "promises" to maintain the registry entry for  "text/html" according to some process rules, and to be the central authority.

  - The DOI system:
  Similarly.  Does the publisher of a DOI-identified document have the authority to correct errors? Is it subject to take-down orders? (Can you give a DOI for the "anarchist's cookbook" and still expect some resolution?)

  - The chemical element symbols:

This does seem to be pretty stable, although perhaps there are disagreements over naming newly discovered elements?

  - The names and orbital parameters of asteroids

(don't know anything about this one)

  - The "binomial" system of biological nomenclature
Aren't there controversies, updates, mergers? Species are mis-named, decisions are made that two species-names really named the same species, etc.

There is an expectation that there will continue to be convergence and friendly scientific discussion about this, but of course, once you get into debates over evolution, there remains the possibility that large communities might resist or disagree with others. 


That there are librarians who are eager to help people resolve names is great! However, the Orwellian forces of Newspeak remain in all of these, where some librarians in some jurisdictions forced to resolve names in ways that are pleasing to their governments (as SOPA and take-down notices threaten to do). If uncool URIs MUST change (as we've seen recently in some situations), it threatens persistent naming.

Perhaps a better way to put this is: persistence depends on the resilience and persistence of the resolution infrastructure, and what it is that is expected to "persist" is part of the definition of the "meaning".  

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net



-----Original Message-----
From: jonathan.rees@gmail.com [mailto:jonathan.rees@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jonathan A Rees
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 5:14 AM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] the "ni:" URI scheme soon to "last call" in IETF -- security concern

[Removing original cc: list Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>,
uri-review <uri-review@ietf.org>, Barry Leiba
<barryleiba@computer.org>, "draft-farrell-decade-ni@tools.ietf.org"
<draft-farrell-decade-ni@tools.ietf.org>
and moving to www-archive to avoid spamming... you can reinstate any
of these cc's if you feel any of these parties might care.]

In reply to: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg01584.html

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
> Since I'm quoted, I thought I better clarify:
>
> "Persistence" and "Permanently" are acts of intention -- a name is "persistent" or "permanent" if there is a credible SLA by some current and future resolution service, where the service promises to be the authority (forever) for telling everyone what a name means or identifies.

Although I've read what you've written on this subject I'm still not
clear on your theory of "persistence" so I'd like to try to draw you
out.

Can you give me an example of a persistent name for which such a
"credible SLA" exists?

SLAs as I understand them are contracts and as such only last a few
years; they are certainly never "permanent".

When I think of persistent naming, I think of the following examples:
  - The RFC series
  - The IANA registries
  - The DOI system
  - The chemical element symbols
  - The names and orbital parameters of asteroids
  - The "binomial" system of biological nomenclature
What examples do you have in mind?

You are right that all of these systems involve "acts of intention"
consisting usually of social acts of publication and dissemination.
The typical ni: URI will probably not involve any such act (although
in principle it could). If this is the main thing you're saying then
we're totally in agreement.

But none of these involve SLAs or even promises on the part of
institutions providing the persistence. None even relies on the
existence of a single resolving agency in perpetuity. Most don't
involve any specific effort on anyone's part to provide persistence
specifically for that system; persistence just happens because the
society in general, and its "memory institutions" in particular, wants
the things that have managed to find their way into these collections
to persist.

Although no such source guarantees a "resolution service", as a matter
of fact there have usually been librarians acting in that role, eager
to help you find these things. In recent years sometimes they have set
up web servers to help with the job of resolution.

For example, the RFC series does not depend on IETF. There are copies
of the RFCs stored in Internet archives, so if IETF disappeared one
day the documents and their resolvability would persist.

Similarly, the persistence of binomial names depend only on getting
their defining publications into a few research libraries. If any one
library burned down, the names would persist by virtue of having their
"meanings" recorded in other libraries.

Similarly for DOIs; the catalog (metadata) has backup copies in memory
institutions, as do almost all of the identified documents. Like ICZN,
the IDF is only a facilitator for a system that belongs to the world,
not an "owner".

But in none of these cases has anyone set up an "SLA" or even made a
credible promise.

> The "ni:" scheme does not provide a persistent name for anything other than chunks of data.

This seems to contradict what you just said. I would think some ni:
URIs could be considered "persistent names" even if most aren't. it
would depend either on the particular ni: and on empirical truth
(supposing we had 200-year-old ni: URIs) or a bettable story (such as
storage and cataloguing in some number of "memory institutions"). When
you contrast "chunks of data" with, say, RFCs, what distinction are
you drawing - are you referring to the problem of digital media
obsolescence, which might be frustrated if someone cataloguing ni:
URIs was not on top of the problem of format upgrades? Or just the
fact that the RFCs reside in memory institutions and we have no reason
to expect that any ni: will (although one could)?

Certainly there have been binomial names and DOIs that have not
persisted. That this is the case does not call the others into doubt.

Whether there is a kind of persistence other than what the memory
institutions offer (collectively, via replication) is, I think,
unclear. National archives burn down, etc.

Do you have a different idea of how "persistence" works?

Best
Jonathan

Received on Tuesday, 8 May 2012 16:39:18 UTC