Subject: [urn] Agenda for IETF 90

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:59:21 -0400

We are currently scheduled for Friday, July 25, 1150 - 1320.

1. Agenda Bashing

2. draft-ietf-urnbis-urns-are-not-uris
   John Klensin

NOTE: The purpose of this session is to discuss the important topic
of separating URNs from URIs. Of specific interest are the following
questions:
  1) Will allowing the use of the reserved characters ?’ and ‘#’ or
     other expansions of syntax cause URN interoperability problems?
  2) If there is no interoperability harm, is the approach to separate
     URNs from the URI framework the currently-known, least-bad
     approach?
  3) If URNs are to be separated from the URI framework then how
     should it be done?

3. Any Other Business

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:02:03 -0400

Also note, we would appreciate discussion on this mailing list prior

>   3) If URNs are to be separated from the URI framework then how

If you have a concrete (or at least solidifying) proposal for #3,
putting it on this list ahead of the session will be beneficial.

-andy

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:50:53 +0900

> We are currently scheduled for Friday, July 25, 1150 - 1320.

I'm sorry I'll not be able to attend this session in person, and I'll 
also not be able to attend remotely, because it's at a time of the day 
where my body isn't useful for anything much else than sleeping :-(.

> of separating URNs from URIs.

Terminology differences don't get solved by splitting, only by clear 
explanations. URIs are an extremely general concept, and URNs can easily 
live within (and be much more restricted to address the needs of the 
communities using them). There is therefore no need for a "split".

> Of specific interest are the following
> questions:

This is a question completely unrelated to the "split". It is a very 
good and important question, and I hope some useful information can be 
gathered in Toronto and otherwise, but essentially:
- If the use of '?' or '#' causes interoperability problems, then that's
   a problem for URNs, and no "split" from URIs will solve it.
- If the use of '?' or '#' does not cause interoperability problems,
   then that's not a problem, because URI/IRI syntax allows '?' and '#'.

>       URNs from the URI framework the currently-known, least-bad

No. There is no need for a "split". URNs fit very well into the URI 
framework, because the URI framework is *extremely* general.

>    3) If URNs are to be separated from the URI framework then how

It shouldn't be done, so the question of how it should be done is 
irrelevant.

> 3. Any Other Business

There are various proposals for how to use query parts, how to create 
registries, and so on. These should be discussed in detail, so that some 
progress can be made.

Regards,   Martin.