Subject: [urn] Different conceptual model compared to earlier specifications

From: "Svensson, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:40:15 +0000

All,

in draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-18 the final paragraph of section 1 reads:

[[
Summaries of changes from RFC 2141 and RFC 3406 appear in Appendix B and Appendix C respectively. This document obsoletes both [RFC2141] and [RFC3406]. While it does not explicitly update or replace [RFC1737] or [RFC2271], the reader who references those documents should be aware that the conceptual model of URNs in this document is slightly different from those older specifications.
]]

This last reference to a "conceptual model [that is] slightly different" leaves the reader hanging in mid-air as to the nature of those changes. I think it would be helpful to supply at least one example of such a difference.

Best,

Lars

*** Lesen. Hören. Wissen. Deutsche Nationalbibliothek *** 
-- 
Dr. Lars G. Svensson
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Informationsinfrastruktur
Adickesallee 1
60322 Frankfurt am Main
Telefon: +49 69 1525-1752
Telefax: +49 69 1525-1799
mailto:[email-masked] 
http://www.dnb.de

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:29:04 -0700

> This last reference to a "conceptual model [that is] slightly different" leaves the reader hanging in mid-air as to the nature of those changes. I think it would be helpful to supply at least one e…

I think I'll leave that for John. :-)

Peter

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 20:03:59 -0500

--On Thursday, December 22, 2016 1:29 PM -0700 Peter Saint-Andre
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> This last reference to a "conceptual model [that is] slightly
>> different" leaves the reader hanging in mid-air as to the
>> nature of those changes. I think it would be helpful to
>> supply at least one example of such a difference.
> 

Yeah, well...

3986 fans, please read all of the following before reacting.

RFC 3986 is, IMO and given examples cited elsewhere (and a
careful reading of the first few paragraphs of its
introduction), mostly about locators, i.e., URLs, with a
periodic nod to non-locator names (specifically of the "urn:"
scheme persuasion).  Its failure to treat URLs and URNs equally
and to call out differences (whether it should have done so or
not) and to be strictly conformant to 2141 has been a major
source of debate and aggravation in this WG.

>From that perspective, most of the discussions we have had about
what identifiers are, whether or not things resolve, how to
handle f-components when there are no media types, whether the
term "resource" is clearly defined or just so much more hand
waving about how broad the term can be, etc., etc., are all
examples of those conceptual differences.

The problem is that I don't think we want to say any of that in
the document.  I'm reluctant to say it even in this note.  I
continue to believe that we can finish 2141bis without
challenging 3986 directly and that is what the WG has more or
less told us to try to do.     So, yes, I recognize that the
comment calls for either examples or more explanation.   I'm
attempting a bit more explanation for -19 but imagine even it
may be controversial.  I don't know how to provide examples
without directly challenging the legitimacy of 3986 and I
really, really, don't want to do that at this point.

best,
   john

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 18:41:33 -0700

> really, really, don't want to do that at this point.

Yes, I agree that this is the best route forward.

Peter