Subject: Re: [urn] Moving ahead with draft-spinosa-urn-lex

From: Enrico Francesconi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 18:45:07 +0200

Dear Dale,
   we are back to you because we would like to ask you if there has been any evolution on the so called "experimental” registration of the URN:LEX namespace. 
The last version of the URN:LEX specifications has been submitted on June 2018 and from that day we did not received any feedback.
So we were wondering if any action is required by us.

Thanks a lot for your collaboration
best regards

   Pierluigi and Enrico

---------------------------------------------------------
Enrico Francesconi
ITTIG - CNR
Institute of Legal Information Theory and Techniques
Italian National Research Council

Via de' Barucci 20
50127 Florence
Italy

Tel: +39-055-4399-665
Fax: +39-055-4399-605
email: [email-masked]
---------------------------------------------------------

> On 04 giu 2018, at 22:46, Enrico Francesconi <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Dale,
>    thanks for your message and to the colleagues who approved your proposal to move ahead with urn-lex registration. 
> 
> As for the issue you raised about the maintenance of the registry of jurisdiction codes, we agree at this stage to be ITTIG-CNR the
> Registrar. In this respect we propose the following changes:
> 
> Section 3.1
> 
> "However, a special register for the <jurisdiction-code>, maintained
> by IANA, is required, the rules of which are defined in section 11.2."
> —>
> "However, a special register for the <jurisdiction-code> is required,
> the rules of which are defined in section 11.2."
> 
> [...]
> 
> Section 11.2
> 
> "IANA is requested to create a new registry for <jurisdiction-code>,
> with the following format:"
> —>
> "It is requested to create a new registry for <jurisdiction-code>,
> with the following format:"
> 
> [...]
> 
> "un.org <http://un.org/>"; "United Nations"; "DPI, United Nations, <address>, <contact>"; [reference]
> —> 
> "un.org <http://un.org/>"; "United Nations"; "DPI, United Nations, <address>, <contact>"; [reference]
> In the current experimental LEX registration phase, ITTIG-CNR will take care to create and maintain the registry for <jurisdiction-code>.
> As the criteria of the LEX names assignment will be consolidated, after the experimental phase such registry will be maintained by
> IANA.
> The adopted registration policy is compliant with the "Expert Review" as specified in [RFC8126].
> Designated Expert(s) will assign jurisdiction codes based on the following principles: "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that such changes are sufficient, we are going to produce
> the draft v. 13 and upload it in the ietf versioning service.
> 
> Thanks!
> Best regards
>    Pierluigi and Enrico
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Enrico Francesconi
> ITTIG - CNR
> Institute of Legal Information Theory and Techniques
> Italian National Research Council
> 
> Via de' Barucci 20
> 50127 Florence
> Italy
> 
> Tel: +39-055-4399-665
> Fax: +39-055-4399-605
> email: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> 
>> On 01 mag 2018, at 02:38, Dale R. Worley <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> 
>> My apologies for not working on this earlier.
>> 
>> The current draft of "urn-lex" is draft-spinosa-urn-lex-12.  People have
>> criticized its proposed URN system in many ways, but it seems to me that
>> most of the criticisms are "bibliographic", they concern good ways to
>> create identifiers for written works.  As such, the IETF is not a good
>> forum for correcting most of those problems.
>> 
>> My proposal is that we implement "rough consensus and running code" --
>> obtain a usable registration of the "lex" URN namespace so that the
>> authors and ITTIG can put the "lex" URNs into practice.  The process of
>> using the URNs will educate the authors regarding the correct resolution
>> of the various problems, and will likely cause them to later submit a
>> revised registration.
>> 
>> That is, the registration we create at this time will be understood to
>> be experimental in nature.
>> 
>> In order to be suitable as an "experimental" registration, there are a
>> few problems that must be resolved:
>> 
>> 1. The URN syntax must conform to the generic URN syntax.
>> 
>> 2. The requirements of uniqueness and persistence must be met.  (That
>> is, any URN designates at most one resource, and the resource that it
>> designates must not change over time.  However, it is permissible to
>> have multiple URNs designate the same resource.)
>> 
>> 3. The process or authority that assigns each URN must be well-defined.
>> 
>> Item 1 is taken care of, in that the syntax in -12 conforms (as far as I
>> can tell) to the URN syntax in RFC 8141.
>> 
>> Item 2 is the responsibility of the Jurisdictional Registrars, in the
>> same way that the naming authorities of many other URN namespaces are
>> responsible for uniqueness and persistence.
>> 
>> Item 3 requires that a registry of jurisdiction codes and Jurisdictional
>> Registrars be maintained.  Section 11.2 of the -12 draft proposes that
>> IANA maintain the registry.  Given the experimental nature of the URN
>> registration, it seems to me to be premature to involve IANA, especially
>> since the principles that the Designated Export must implement are
>> likely to change over time.  Instead, it seems to me that the best
>> choice for registrar is ITTIG-CNR, the proposer and developer of the URN
>> namespace.
>> 
>> When the namespace definition is transitioned to a non-experimental
>> status (including fixing a good set of policies to assign jurisdiction
>> codes), the registry can be transferred to IANA to implement the proven
>> policies.
>> 
>> Following this path requires only small changes for -13, viz., updating
>> section 11.2.
>> 
>> Dale
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Archived discussions:
>> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg03828.html <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg03828.html>
>> 16 Nov 2017
>> "urn:lex draft v. 12"
>> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg03811.html
>> starting 20 Sep 2017
>> "Request for new URN namespace review: LEX"
>> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
>> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn-nid/current/msg01270.html
>> starting 29 Apr 2014
>> "Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex"
>> Message-Id: <CALaySJJk5YiCQZqt6WoWkqfAzi2A04HEAH=[email-masked]>
>> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn-nid/current/msg01204.html
>> starting 27 Mar 2013
>> "Application for a formal URN NID"
>> Message-Id: <23A64284-6B03-4B24-B680-54A61E96BECA at ittig.cnr.it>
>> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn-nid/current/msg01059.html
>> 15 Oct 2009
>> "URN LEX Namespace submission"
>