Subject: [urn] 2141bis questions - (5) Section 6 and valid and invalid URNs

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 12:54:51 -0500

Section 6 ("URN Namespaces") of 2141bis talks about valid and
invalid, formal and informal URNs.  The combinations are a
little confusing, especially since the current text makes a
string that generally follows the URN syntax but that uses an
unregistered NID invalid.  I think some clarification is in
order and want to make sure the WG agrees.  Hence:

Question 1: It is our intent to keep URN-like objects based on
unregistered namespace invalid, right?

Question 2: The last paragraph of the Section 6 introduction
(before Section 6.1 starts) disposes of "experimental"
namespaces.  I believe it should be made clear that continued
use of such namespaces with URN-like syntax does not make them
valid URNs (because they are unregistered).   If anyone
disagrees, please speak up not.

   john

p.s. Probably more coming soon to help people celebrate the
season, i.e., "Bah. Humbug".

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:52:20 -0700

> unregistered namespace invalid, right?

I think so. URNs are a managed process. If someone starts creating URNs 
under urn:klensin:* and no one ever registered "klensin" as a NID, then 
they're out of bounds.

> disagrees, please speak up not.

Agreed.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/