Subject: Request review of "A URN Namespace for Transaction Identifiers"

From: Sean Leonard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 23:22:09 -0800

Greetings:

I would like to request your review of the following Internet-Draft:

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-seantek-tid-urn-00.txt
****************

Filename:	 draft-seantek-tid-urn
Revision:	 00
Title:		 A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Transaction Identifiers
Creation_date:	 2010-02-09
WG ID:		 Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 12

Abstract:
Transaction identifiers are used throughout modern commerce to
memorialize particular economic events.  This document describes a
Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace that contains transaction
identifiers.
****************                                 

Thanks to Ted Hardie for suggesting that I post the Internet-Draft 
first, and for providing preliminary comments.

Thank you,

Sean Leonard

---

From: DWIGHT SMITH <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:50:40 -0600

This doesn't seem to fit the norm usage for URNs, particularly the need for
the secondary registration of TID URN (alternative 1).

instead of trying to fit these cases into the URN model (and either have a
TID secondary registration effort or depend on domain name or other
transitory identifier) why not just set up a new identifier class from the
get-go.  it would be interesting to validate the market interest or desire
to utilize such a scheme as there would be many transactions that would not
be public - and therefore could stay in a proprietary format.

regards,
Dwight

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Sean Leonard
<[email-masked]<[email-masked]>
> wrote:

> Thanks to Ted Hardie for suggesting that I post the Internet-Draft first,
> and for providing preliminary comments.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Sean Leonard
>
>

---

From: Sean Leonard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:46:09 -0800

Dwight,

Thank you for your comments.

What do you mean by "new identifier class"? Perhaps you can elaborate.

Russ Housley suggested to me that rather than creating a new IANA 
registry, the PEN registry could be used for this purpose. If that 
happened in theory, would that address your concern?

Regarding your comment about "transactions that would not be public - 
and therefore could stay in a proprietary format"--one does not follow 
from the other.

Many transaction identifiers might contain or refer to data that parties 
do not want to make public, i.e., publish all over the Internet. 
However, private parties will still want to interchange transaction 
identifiers with others. The whole point is that parties can interchange 
these TIDs without relying on proprietary formats or encodings.

Regards,

Sean

On 2/22/2010 11:50 AM, DWIGHT SMITH wrote:
> This doesn't seem to fit the norm usage for URNs, particularly the 
> need for the secondary registration of TID URN (alternative 1).
>
> instead of trying to fit these cases into the URN model (and either 
> have a TID secondary registration effort or depend on domain name or 
> other transitory identifier) why not just set up a new identifier 
> class from the get-go.  it would be interesting to validate the market 
> interest or desire to utilize such a scheme as there would be many 
> transactions that would not be public - and therefore could stay in a 
> proprietary format.
>
> regards,
> Dwight
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Sean Leonard <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Greetings:
>

---

From: DWIGHT SMITH <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:53:34 -0600

It just seems that if there is a need to create a registry for the TID
entity (e.g. to reserve 'paypal') that you might as well create a unique
identifier (something new that wasn't a URN) and structure it in a form most
usable for that market need.

For example, you would benefit by not having to conform to the character
restrictions of URNs.  Further, if you wanted to create sub-classes of items
(e.g. receipt, payment, etc) then you can do what makes sense.

As far as reusing the PEN (set up for SNMP MIB configs) it seems that if a
company or other entity wants to reserve a TID code that it shouldn't be
obliged to reserve a code from PEN  All that is doing is putting the
registry work on an existing one intended for a specific purpose and using
it in a form for which it was not designed.  While reuse is nice - a control
point for transactions (TID identified items) may not be same nexus of items
seeking SNMP config ids.

There then needs to be the market awareness of how a TID would be reconciled
- particularly if you expose public and private codes and want to make the
correct associations for security, privacy or other policy purposes.

Again, it just does not feel like a 'normal' URN model where an organization
wants to have unique labels and records a NID to give them ownership of a
namespace for their use.  The secondary registration puts this in a
different class.

regards,
Dwight

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Sean Leonard
<[email-masked]<[email-masked]>

> Russ Housley suggested to me that rather than creating a new IANA registry,
> the PEN registry could be used for this purpose. If that happened in theory,
> would that address your concern?
>
> Regarding your comment about "transactions that would not be public - and
> therefore could stay in a proprietary format"--one does not follow from the
> other.
>
> Many transaction identifiers might contain or refer to data that parties do
> not want to make public, i.e., publish all over the Internet. However,
> private parties will still want to interchange transaction identifiers with
> others. The whole point is that parties can interchange these TIDs without
> relying on proprietary formats or encodings.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean
>
>
>> This doesn't seem to fit the norm usage for URNs, particularly the need
>> for the secondary registration of TID URN (alternative 1).
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Sean Leonard <[email-masked]<[email-masked]><mailto:
>> [email-masked] <[email-masked]>>> wrote:
>>
>>    Greetings:
>>