Subject: review requested: "example" NID

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:05:48 -0700

For review here, as extracted from draft-saintandre-urn-example-01...

###

2.  Specification Template

2.1.  Namespace ID

   The Namespace ID "example" is requested.

2.2.  Registration Information

   Version 1

   Date: [to be assigned]

2.3.  Declared Registrant of the Namespace

   Registering organization: IETF

   Designated contact: IESG, [email-masked]

2.4.  Declaration of Syntactic Structure

   The Namespace Specific String (NSS) of all URNs that use the
   "example" NID shall have the following structure:

   urn:example:{NSS}

   The NSS is a mandatory string of ASCII characters [RFC20] that
   conforms to the URN syntax requirements [RFC2141] and that provides a

Saint-Andre               Expires July 11, 2013                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                Example URNs                  January 2013

   name that is useful within the relevant documentation example, test
   suite, or other application.

2.5.  Relevant Ancillary Documentation

   See [RFC6648] for information about deprecation of the "x-"
   convention in protocol parameters and identifiers.

2.6.  Identifier Uniqueness Considerations

   Those who mint example URNs ought to strive for uniqueness in the
   namespace specific string portion of the URN.  However, such
   uniqueness cannot be guaranteed through the assignment process.  As a
   result, implementers are counselled against using example URNs for
   any purposes other than documentation, private testing, and truly
   experimental contexts.

2.7.  Identifier Persistence Considerations

   Once minted, an example URN is immutable.  However, it is simply a
   string and there is no guarantee that the documentation, test suite,
   or other application using the URN is immutable.

2.8.  Process for Identifier Resolution

   Example URNs are not intended to be resolved, and the namespace is
   not and probably never will be registered with a Resolution Discovery
   System.

2.9.  Rules for Lexical Equivalence

   No special considerations; the rules for lexical equivalence
   specified in [RFC2141] apply.

2.10.  Conformance with URN Syntax

   No special considerations

2.11.  Validation Mechanism

   None

2.12.  Scope

   Global

###

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 13:19:20 +0900

>     not and probably never will be registered with a Resolution Discovery

Just a question: What if somebody, in some system, registers this so 
that it resolves to an explanation that these are only examples?

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:28:52 -0700

On 1/7/13 9:19 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>> Example URNs are not intended to be resolved, and the namespace
>> is not and probably never will be registered with a Resolution
>> Discovery System.
> 
> Just a question: What if somebody, in some system, registers this
> so that it resolves to an explanation that these are only
> examples?

I had not considered that possibility, but I suppose it could happen!

Peter

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