Subject: URN for person and organization

From: "Timur Shemsedinov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:33:04 +0300

Hello

Does anybody know URN schema for person and organization except OID (
http://www.oid-info.com/) and PIN URN Schema (Network Solutions) ?
Mentioned two schemas are not suitable for my purposes because they supposed
to have one central authority for registration.
It is likewise if there was only one organization in the world for domain
names registration, which would not be able to delegate sub-ranges to
someone else by region or activity field... So, I would prefer something
like person://user@authorityname
I am in search of such solution...

Timur
_______________________________________________
Apps-Discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:50:35 +0200

On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 03:33:04PM +0300,
 Timur Shemsedinov <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 46 lines which said:

> It is likewise if there was only one organization in the world for
> domain names registration, which would not be able to delegate
> sub-ranges to someone else by region or activity field... So, I
> would prefer something like person://user@authorityname

Why not simply http://timur.shemsedinov.example/ ? No, the use of the
"http" scheme does not imply that there is a HTTP server.

See <http://norman.walsh.name/2006/07/25/namesAndAddresses> and
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-cooluris-20080321/> (for solutions that
are a little different)

[There are many other solutions but let's see them one at a time.]

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:10:56 -0400

> "http" scheme does not imply that there is a HTTP server.

perhaps not, but it's pretty confusing to use an HTTP URL in this way 
when a huge body of existing practice uses HTTP URLs to point to 
resources that can be accessed via HTTP.
_______________________________________________
Apps-Discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:27:47 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Timur Shemsedinov" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 4:33 AM
> Subject: URN for person and organization
...
> to have one central authority for registration.
....

Uhhh, I'm missing something.  How does the use of OID require a central
authority for registration?  A key feature of the way OIDs work is that
they do not require administrative coordinate, much less centralization.

Randy

---

From: "Timur Shemsedinov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 23:10:37 +0300

> they do not require administrative coordinate, much less centralization.

But they need central register (database) to guarantee uniqueness or central
one and sub-registers (hierarchical structure of child authorities).
For example urn:oid:1.2.250.1 - {iso(1) member-body(2) f(250) type-org(1)}
so it is a authority tree like domain names, but I prefers domain names to
identify authority because it is mode human readable and good for
understanding and remembering

Timur

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 22:46:57 +0200

Timur Shemsedinov wrote:

> I prefers domain names to identify authority because it is
> mode human readable and good for understanding and remembering

Some of your goals match what RFC 4151 (tag: URI scheme) offers.

 Frank

---

From: "Timur Shemsedinov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 23:51:01 +0300

Oh, I forgot following alternatives:
3) DOI - http://doi.org/ - The Digital Object Identifier System
4) OpenID - http://openid.net/ - OpenID Foundation (OIDF)
5) GUID (Globally Unique Identifier), UUID (Universally Unique Identifier)
and other integer-numeric based random or calculated methods

OpenID offers us to use HTTP schema - I do not like it - it brings
misunderstanding in URL/URN usage. I think URN can be resolved / reflected
into one or many of URLs
GIUD - is not human-friendly
DOI is much better approach but who have any other suggestions on person and
organization identification?

Timur

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:55:44 -0500

> understanding and remembering

The OID namespace is very similar to the DNS namespace in that it allows
for delegation.

The main issue with OIDs is the lack of standard protocols for: a)
finding authorities for any one arc, b) name resolution (which means
that users are routinely faced with meaningless (to them) numeric OIDs.

Frankly, I'd like to see the ITU-T put forward such protocols, perhaps
based on the DNS itself (hey, why not?  It almost fits the bill as
it is -- I think all that's missing are appropriate TLDs).

Also, everyone knows how to get a domainname.  Few know how to get an
OID.

So, I agree that the DNS is a better option.

Nico
--

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:02:20 -0500

> GIUD - is not human-friendly

But GUIDs may have useful privacy protection semantics, namely,
pseudonymity.  So I think GUIDs should not be rejected outright.

Of course, GUIDs are not at all user-friendly, certainly not without a
name resolution protocol (which ruins the pseudonymity aspect).  But I
think the way they'd be used is as follows: one peer hands you a GUID-
based person URN, and you then ask the same peer for whatever personal
information associated with the URN that you're allowed to have, and
this is what you display to users -- you'd then store {URN, authority}
in a database or {URN, authority, data} in a database and query it as
necessary.  That's not at all unfriendly, and public references to such
URNs retain the pseudonymity benefit.

Nico

---

From: "Timur Shemsedinov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 00:14:03 +0300

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> OID. So, I agree that the DNS is a better option.
>

So, we have OID, DOI, OpenID, GUID, UUID, PIN, IUID, OUI (from IETF), etc...
Some of them uses integer-numbers, alpha-numeric random-generated or
algorithmic-generated, URL/URN/URI syntax or other syntactic constructions,
using HTTP or other inappropriate schemas (why not FTP: or TELNET: - it is
comically situation at all)
So is it a task for IETF or ISO or IEEE or someone else to organize this
field?
We need something simple and practical... I see that all approaches have its
benefits, even similar constructions
Problem is that URL/URN/URI gives unnecessary flexibility in objects
identification (not fixed by other documents), so as a result we have
multiple approaches.

Timur

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:20:26 -0500

> comically situation at all)

Quite clearly we need a user-friendly URN representation of "person,"
assuming we need a URN representation of "person" at all.

And quite clearly such a thing should support multiple resolution/access
schemes.

> So is it a task for IETF or ISO or IEEE or someone else to organize this

IETF I think.  Someone who's more in tune with URNs and the IETF App
Area could tell you if such a thing already exists or if there have been
past (or current) efforts in this area that you should be aware of.

> identification (not fixed by other documents), so as a result we have

I tend to agree.  A person URN would be nice.  In the meantime I'd use
a combination of http: and mailto: URLs.

Nico

---

From: "Timur Shemsedinov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 00:24:05 +0300

> pseudonymity.  So I think GUIDs should not be rejected outright.
Yes, you are right, we need such ability as pseudonymity, and what is more -
we need temporary-valid and spatially-valid identifiers (with specified
validity limits)

Timur

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:31:10 -0700

This area seems really difficult to address, because anybody who looks  
at a problem statement like yours will have a very different idea of  
the requirements and indeed for what seems user-friendly.  If a group  
were to accept all the requirements, it would likely be over- 
constrained.  One of the reasons why the work so far has been  
splintered and unsatisifying is because of the choice made to reduce  
scope in each case where something was actually completed.

To add to the list, the OASIS standard for resource identifiers,  
compatible with URIs,  is XRIs: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15694 
   I'm not sure how i-Names is related, but it uses XRIs for person  
identifiers. 	

The geopriv WG has a lot of relevant work to the spatially-valid  
question.  That is a huge question, as a matter of fact, not a trivial  
requirement to add!

Lisa

On Apr 2, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Timur Shemsedinov wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Nicolas Williams <[email-masked] 
> > wrote:
> Yes, you are right, we need such ability as pseudonymity, and what  
> is more - we need temporary-valid and spatially-valid identifiers  
> (with specified validity limits)
>
> Timur

---

From: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:02:53 -0700 (PDT)

> URNs retain the pseudonymity benefit.

The Liberty Alliance People Service is a complete specification including 
just this kind of mediated information release with opaque identifiers, 
see:

http://www.projectliberty.org/liberty/resource_center/faq/people_service__1

I think there are implementations available, though perhaps not open 
source ones.

  - RL "Bob"

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:40:22 -0400

> Does anybody know URN schema for person and organization except OID 
> (http://www.oid-info.com/) and PIN URN Schema (Network Solutions) ?
> Mentioned two schemas are not suitable for my purposes because they 
> supposed to have one central authority for registration.

It's difficult to meet URN uniqueness requirements without some kind of 
centralized registration.  And it's difficult to meet URN persistence 
requirements if you incorporate a human-friendly name like DNS which is 
subject to disputes about ownership, and thus, a potential for reassignment.

---

From: "Timur Shemsedinov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 01:41:45 +0300

> that users are routinely faced with meaningless (to them) numeric OIDs.
You are right: finding authorities, identifier resolution and I can add c)
backward resolution d) data representation format for resolution results (it
may contain complex structures).

To resolve person identifier into URL we can use something like DNS
hierarchical system:
Root server may hold table, for example:

Priority  RegEx                 Child-Server     Comment
10        ^urn:person://.*$     67.95.155.67     person identifiers server
20        ^urn:org://.*$        195.39.196.42    organization identifiers
server
30        ^urn:[a-z]*://.*$     82.144.192.130   all other schemas should be
resolved by this server

and 67.95.155.67 may hold another sub-table:

Priority  RegEx                          Child-Server     Comment
10        ^urn:person://[email-masked]$  66.218.140.51    person identifiers
for RTI authority
20        ^urn:person://.*$              82.144.192.130   all other domains
should be resolved by this server

etc...

and as a result of resolving we can receive something like table of all URLs
for this person: mailto, http, ftp, tel... in XML or binary or other format
It is good approach for communication software and smart communication
devices. You can call somebody by person: schema (instead of tel: which may
change)

Timur

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 17:57:32 -0500

> may contain complex structures).

I didn't think (c) needed to be spelled out separately :)  It's just
necessary, at least for OIDs, IP addresses, ...

> [...]

All very nice, but do look at the Liberty Alliance People Service stuff
that Bob mentioned, and the i-Names stuff that Lisa mentioned.  Even if
they shouldn't fit the bill exactly, it's better to not re-invent the
wheel if one exists or if you can find a polygon that approximates a
wheel closely enough or that can be hammered into shape :)

Nico

---

From: "Timur Shemsedinov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 02:34:07 +0300

> wheel closely enough or that can be hammered into shape :)

Sure, thank you, Frank, Bob and Lisa!
I'll read all received links and documents, but I am usually think how to
solve a problem before search of known solutions just by force of software
developers habit :) fresh ideas may come... but, of course, I need to
investigate all known approaches, otherwise in nearest future we may need
special scheme for naming all mentioned identifying systems: OID, DOI,
OpenID, PIN.... :)
_______________________________________________
Apps-Discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:59:41 +0200

On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 11:51:01PM +0300,
 Timur Shemsedinov <[email-masked]> wrote 

> 3) DOI - http://doi.org/ - The Digital Object Identifier System

Very expensive and maintained by a private and closed organization,
whose future is completely unclear. Pure snake oil.

> 4) OpenID - http://openid.net/ - OpenID Foundation (OIDF)

OpenID uses ordinary HTTP URL as identifiers.

> and other integer-numeric based random or calculated methods

RFC 4122 is indeed a good solution. A limitation: there is no secure
binding between an UUID and its holder. Anyone can claim he is
urn:uuid:c966efc5-7034-4067-90e0-42784909f677 

If you like random strings of bits, a PGP key or a X509 certificate
are more interesting since they bring the ability to prove this
binding.

> OpenID offers us to use HTTP schema - I do not like it - 

Why?

> it brings misunderstanding in URL/URN usage.

Can you elaborate? It seems there is some religious issue here?

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 10:04:47 +0200

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 12:14:03AM +0300,
 Timur Shemsedinov <[email-masked]> wrote 

> So, we have OID, DOI, OpenID, GUID, UUID, PIN, IUID, OUI (from

And many, many others ("I am not a number, I am PGP
0x97D6D246") <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Identifiers>

> So is it a task for IETF or ISO or IEEE or someone else to organize
> this field?

"Organizing this field" is a huge task and a complicated one. Finding
a good identifier for people (your original message) is much simpler).

> We need something simple and practical... 

If so, HTTP URL are clearly the best solution.

> identification (not fixed by other documents), 

A profile of URL is a good approach. This is the one taken by the W3C:
do not reinvent the wheel, use
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-cooluris-20080321/>
_______________________________________________
Apps-Discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:42:56 +0900

At 05:51 08/04/03, Timur Shemsedinov wrote:

>OpenID offers us to use HTTP schema - I do not like it - it brings misunderstanding in URL/URN usage.
>I think URN can be resolved / reflected into one or many of URLs

I understand why you have your reservations for HTTP, but HTTP
is the only protocol where resolution into data, mapping into
one other identifiers (HTTP redirect), and mapping into
multiple other identifiers (HTTP multiple choice) are part
of the protocol and WIDELY implemented and available.

Regards,   Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:50:51 +0900

At 06:31 08/04/03, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

>To add to the list, the OASIS standard for resource identifiers, compatible with URIs,  is XRIs: <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15694>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15694  I'm not sure how i-Names is related, but it uses XRIs for person identifiers. 

As far as I understand, OASIS has very low barriers for getting something
worked on/approved, and little if no mechanisms in place for coordination,
e.g. to fill in obvious holes or to coordinate or select among solutions
competing for the same space. That may well be appropriate for the areas
they are mainly working in (applied business standards and the like).
Also, their hurdles for calling something a standard are extremely low
when compared to the IETF, and low also compared to other organizations.

Therefore, saying "the OASIS standard for resource identifiers" may be
misleading. "an OASIS standard for resource identifiers" probably fits
closer with reality.

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:30:56 +0900

At 06:14 08/04/03, Timur Shemsedinov wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Nicolas Williams <<mailto:[email-masked]>[email-masked]> wrote:
>>...
>Some of them uses integer-numbers, alpha-numeric random-generated or algorithmic-generated, URL/URN/URI syntax or other syntactic constructions, using HTTP or other inappropriate schemas (why not FTP: or TELNET: - it is comically situation at all)
>So is it a task for IETF or ISO or IEEE or someone else to organize this field?
>We need something simple and practical... I see that all approaches have its benefits, even similar constructions
>Problem is that URL/URN/URI gives unnecessary flexibility in objects identification (not fixed by other documents), so as a result we have multiple approaches.

That's actually a feature. It would be great if everybody could agree
on a single set of requirements, but that hasn't been the case for at
least the last 15 years. Also, it's difficult to know what uses these
identifiers will be put to in the future, so the fact that there is
an unified syntax and one big space for everything helps a lot for
future extensibility and new uses.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: "Timur Shemsedinov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 21:31:36 +0300

> > OpenID offers us to use HTTP schema - I do not like it -
Why not ftp: or telnet: ?

> Can you elaborate? It seems there is some religious issue here?
Because HTTP is URL scheme (lacator) and I need URN scheme. I do not use
HTTP protocol in my solution architecture...
I am sure, identifying is not a task for locators or for protocols at all
_______________________________________________
Apps-Discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:44:13 -0500

> of the protocol and WIDELY implemented and available.

Huh?  The issue is not that HTTP shouldn't be used to obtain relevant
data given some ID.  The issue is that it shouldn't be the only
protocol, nor should we map http: person URLs to other URIs to get
around the problem.

The reason for preferring http: is simple: all software out there knows
what to do with an http URL.
_______________________________________________
Apps-Discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

---

From: "Timur Shemsedinov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 21:49:02 +0300

> future extensibility and new uses.

I see already some satisfying person-identifying solutions for my needs and
not trying to reinvent...
But... for future use... I would like to have more relevant solution, so how
do you think,
can we invite developers of all mentioned identifying solutions to IETF
discuss list to find
requirements and fix assumption to develop one solution?

Timur

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:56:07 -0500

> requirements and fix assumption to develop one solution?

You write an Internet-Draft outlining requirements and, maybe, other
I-Ds proposing one or more solutions, then ask for a BoF to be scheduled
at the next IETF conference (and, if scheduled, you should show up).

Nico