Subject: [Uri-review] New Version Notification for draft-ah-rfc2141bis-urn-00 (fwd) (resent)

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:44:41 +0200 (MESZ)

[[  Resending because of trouble with spam filtering (now resolved)  ]]

> From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:39:06 +0100 (MEZ)
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ah-rfc2141bis-urn-00 (fwd)

Folks,
I have posted an initial draft version for a RFC 2141 bis,
to give the 'urn' URI scheme a 'modern' definition document
in line with STD 66 (RFC 3986) and BCP 35 (RFC 4395).

My apologies for cross-posting.  Please send follow-up messages
to uri-review (provisional dispositon -- see below).

This work is triggered by the PersID project that aims to establish
an international network of stable resolution services for Persistent
Identifiers (URNs), in particular for Bibliographic identifiers.

To give that work a more solid ground, updates to the basic URN-related
documents (RFC 2141 and RFC 3406) and URN namespace-specific RFCs are
planned, and brought to the IETF, in order to bring these documents
in alignment with current IETF Full Standards and IANA procedures.

The ultimate goal is to establish a dedicated 'urnbis' WG in the IETF,
hopefully by this summer, with an ambitious schedule to bring revised
documents initially targetting PS / BCP status to the IESG, with the
goal of fast progression of RFC 2141-bis on the Standards Track.

During the work on this draft, ambiguities in RFC 2141 syntax and
prose have been uncovered.  Also, there seems to be an opportunity
to better align the general URN ABNF with RFC 3986 general URI syntax.

At this stage, I'm particularly interested in early discussion
of the syntax questions raised by NOTEs and DISCUSS comments
in Section 2[.*] .

I envision that particular URN namespace definitions in the future
could be allowed to admit (per namespace) standard <question> and
<fragment> components as specified in RFC 3986 -- this question
was explicitly deferred by RFC 2141 -- and to simplify the syntax
of the Namespace Specific String (NSS) to simply be a <segment-nz>.

Kind regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

--

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

----- Forwarded message from IETF I-D Submission Tool -----

> From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <[email-masked]>
> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 04:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ah-rfc2141bis-urn-00

A new version of I-D, draft-ah-rfc2141bis-urn-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Alfred Hoenes and posted
to the IETF repository.

Filename:        draft-ah-rfc2141bis-urn
Revision:        00
Title:           Uniform Resource Name (URN) Syntax
Creation_date:   2010-03-24
WG ID:           Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 18

Abstract:
Uniform Resource Names (URNs) are intended to serve as persistent,
location-independent, resource identifiers.  This document serves as
the foundation of the 'urn' URI Scheme according to RFC 3986 and sets
forward the canonical syntax for URNs, which subdivides URNs into
"namespaces".  A discussion of both existing legacy and new
namespaces and requirements for URN presentation and transmission are
presented.  Finally, there is a discussion of URN equivalence and how
to determine it.  This document supersedes RFC 2141.

The requirements and procedures for URN Namespace registration
documents are currently set forth in RFC 3406, which is also expected
to be updated by an independent, revised specification soon.

Discussion

This draft version has been obtained by importing the text from RFC
2141 into modern tools and making a first round of updating steps.
It is intended to serve as one of the starting points for an effort
to bring URN RFCs in alignment with STD 63, STD 68, BCP 26, and the
requirements from emerging distributed national and international URN
resolution systems, and advance them on the IETF Standards Track.

Until a more specific mailing list is established, comments are
welcome on the [email-masked] mailing list (or sent to the
document editor).

The IETF Secretariat.

----- End of forwarded message from IETF I-D Submission Tool -----