Subject: Re: [urn] WG Review: Uniform Resource Names, Revised (urnbis)

From: Renato Iannella <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10:38:25 +1000

Hi all - I've just (re-)joined the URN group and very supportive of the new Charter.

Having seen the Linked Data movement grow significantly in the Semantic Web world, the need for longer-term stable names will take on greater relevance now....

Cheers...
Renato Iannella
Semantic Identity
http://semanticidentity.com
Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206

---

From: Renato Iannella <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 18:26:14 +1000

Also...I think the Charter needs to make a strong statement on Web Browser support for URNs.

Without this, I think we face un uphill battle...

We need to "reach out" to the Web Browser vendors with clear mechanisms to resolve URNs.

(I should have added that I was one of the Authors of RFC 3406)

Cheers...
Renato Iannella
Semantic Identity

---

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 12:08:16 +0100 (MEZ)

Renato,
thanks for your notes and your support.

> Without this, I think we face an uphill battle...

Well, to get the effort started, we had to adopt to various concerns.
The best way to reach a goal frequently is dividing the path you have
in mind into steps and take on the logically first steps temporally
before the dependent ones.  In the BOF, we saw rough consensus on
including a revision of RFC 2483 in the initial targets, because it has
been shown that the list of URN Services defined there (and declared as
complete and universally applicable to all URN namespaces) in practice
has proven unrealistical and insufficient in the (roughly) decade of
increasing usage of URNs.  Larry Masinter has given a sketch and
analysis in his "musings" of why the one-size-fits-all attempt to tie
URN resolution exclusively to a DNS-based DDDS mechanism has not got
any traction in practice.  This certainly deserves further analysis
and work on conclusions.

The idea therefore was to start work on a six-pack of documents,
including URN resolution services at the *abstract* level, and to
informally explore the URN resolution *mechanisms* in actual use
today and the detailed requirements during that phase, so that we
then could attempt to re-charter with a sound concept of the next
steps and concrete milestones regarding resolution mechanisms.

However, the rfc2483bis goal description and milestones have been
taken out of the draft charter immediately before submission of the
draft charter for public review.  If you believe that this should be
undone, please feel free to argue in more detail with the IESG.

We would appreciate if that part could be restored, but if this turns
out to be a road block to now eventually getting the WG chartered,
we are willing to try to work around the restrictions of not having
an updated document on URN services to make normative reference of,
work as fast as possible and according to the initial milestones,
and in parallel informally prepare for future steps in the WG, after
reaching the majority of initial goals.
In any case, the more efficient the WG operates and ships documents
to the IESG, the faster we hope to arrive at a point where we can
talk in detail about future steps.

> mechanisms to resolve URNs.

In principle, I agree.  But at the first stage, we need to arrive
at an up-to-date set of 'core' components on the Standards Track
(or as a BCP), on which subsequent work on concrete resolution
mechanisms can be based.  The question now is how comprehensive
the initial stage is going to be scoped, whether there would be a
need to respin the other core documents once the updated
URN Services document is ready, etc.
The URN Services document will take over the role of a requirements
document for concrete URN Resolution mechanism specifications, and
unlike observed in other WGs, I insist on getting the requirements
document done before the protocol work, and not to retrofit the
requirements after the fact.  :-)

> (I should have added that I was one of the Authors of RFC 3406)

Yeah!  I already have started work on the 'bis', hoping to be able
to submit an inital -00 very quickly after WG chartering.  You are
cordially invited to contribute to the subsequent versions to come!

Kind regards,
  Alfred.

> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn

---

From: Renato Iannella <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:54:21 +1000

> requirements after the fact.  :-)

I fully agree - this is important - get the requirements right that reflect real-world usages and scenarios.

Cheers...
Renato Iannella
Semantic Identity