Subject: Request for comments: Delegation of urn:ogf

From: Freek Dijkstra <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 11:12:29 +0200

Hi all,

13 Nov last year [1] I first submitted a I-D requesting a formal URN
delegation for the "urn:ogf:" namespace.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dijkstra-urn-ogf

So far I did not receive IETF feedback. I recently found some time to
update the document based on feedback from the Open Grid Forum (OGF).

I kindly request list members to review this document.

The purpose of this document is to delegate this namespace to the Open
Grid Forum (OGF). Yes, this just adds another layer of indirection
without technical benefit :), as it only delegates the namespace without
actually assigning identifiers yet. However, we see some limited use of
its namespace, and like to formally document this usage. Hence the
request for delegation.

For review, I particularly appreciate feedback on the text dealing
forward compatibility with RFC2141bis. (I obviously can't refer to that
document yet, but at the same time want subnamespaces to be prepared for
future changes).

FYI, a draft dealing with further delegation of the urn:ogf namespace
can be found at http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6478. That document will
be on hold until this I-D is published as RFC.

With kind regards,
Freek Dijkstra

---

From: Freek Dijkstra <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 18:53:49 +0200

My apology for the continued polling of this list.

Tomorrow marks the end of the two-week review period for urn:ogf.

In case you have a few moments to spare, I highly appreciate your feedback.

Much obliged,
Freek Dijkstra

Freek Dijkstra wrote:

> [...] I submitted a I-D requesting a formal URN
> [...]

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:28:59 -0600

> My apology for the continued polling of this list.

My apologies for the very slow reply.

>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dijkstra-urn-ogf

With regard to the identifier uniqueness considerations, please make it
clear whether the Open Grid Forum's Technical Director will ever assign
secondary responsibility for management of any sub-trees, and whether it
will be permissable to re-assign URNs. (My recommendation is to say you
won't do those things.)

With regard to resolution, the I-D says:

   OGF will maintain an index of all subnamespace identifiers on its Web
   site, http://www.ogf.org/urn/.

   Resolution mechanism of SUBNAMESPACE-SPECIFIC-STRING within each SNID
   MUST be defined before assignment of a subnamespace identifier.

I think instead you want to say something like this:

      The namespace is not currently listed with a Resolution
      Discovery System (RDS), but nothing about the namespace
      prohibits the future definition of appropriate resolution
      methods or listing with an RDS.

Your text about resolving sub-namespaces is not clear to me. Do you mean
that an SNID will need to be listed with an RDS upon issuance?

>> document yet, but at the same time want subnamespaces to be prepared for

I think it is best not to prejudge the outcome of the revision process.
You can always update this document, or the relevant OGF specifications
governing issuance of urn:ogf:* URNs, if and when the base spec changes.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/