Subject: Re: REMINDER [was Re: WG last call: draft-ietf-urn-rfc2611bis-02.txt]

From: Rob Cameron <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:01:17 -0800

Leslie,

Here are my comments on this draft.

1.  I believe it would help to introduce some finer terminology with
    respect to uniqueness.   For example, the phrase "uniquely-assigned
    identifier" would be read by many to mean that one and only one
    identifier may exist for a resource.   What is technically
    required, however, is that every URN is unambiguous, i.e., that
    it denotes a unique resource.

    With separately assigned namespaces, with possibly overlapping
    functionality, it is not possible to ensure that the URN for
    a resource is unique.

2.  The examples given with ISBNs and ISSNs are confusing, because
    they make false statements.

    "while there may be some number (or numbers) that is both a valid
     ISBN identifier and ISSN identifier, ..."      (Section 2.0)

    "a namespace may make use of an privately managed (proprietary)
     registry (as, e.g., ISBN does)."  (Section 3.3)

3.  I am confused by the statement: 'even if an ISBN URN namespace is
    created, it is not clear that all ISBNs will translate directly
    into "assigned URNs".'   What are you trying to say?

4.  I am greatly concerned about the following paragraph at the
    end of section 4.3.

   "Registrations may be revised by updating the RFC through standard
    IETF RFC update mechanisms.  Thus, proposals for updates may be made
    by the original authors, other IETF participants, or the IESG.  In
    any case, the proposed updated template must be circulated on the
    urn-nid discussion list, allowing for a 2 week review period."

    If the original authors are not involved, I believe that this is
    process is woefully inadequate.

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:17:22 -0500

Hi Rob,

Thanks much for the comments.  I'll incorporate them in a revised
draft, except:

>      ISBN identifier and ISSN identifier, ..."      (Section 2.0)

The point is that NSS's may be the same between two different NIDs,
and there will be _no_ relationship between the two URNs.
I can change it from ISSN/ISBN (though I'm not absolutely certain
it's wrong -- if you pull the dashes from each, they become number
strings, and is it absolutely the case that there might not happen
to be 2 number strings that were the same?).

>      registry (as, e.g., ISBN does)."  (Section 3.3)

Please clarify what aspect is wrong.

>     into "assigned URNs".'   What are you trying to say?

ISBNs are assigned to all published books.  It isn't clear (or at
least, it wasn't before they published their proposed NID) that
they would want every single ISBN to be converted into a URN.  I.e.,
that if you found an ISBN, did some syntactic translation for
converting it into URN:ISBN:<isbn> it would produce a URN that
ISBN considered "assigned", for which resolution services might
be expected.

I will clarify the point; it's an issue of relationship between
existing naming schemes (for other purposes) and URNs as identifiers.
THey may not map one-to-one.

>     process is woefully inadequate.

This paragraph captures IETF RFC update policy.  The IESG is
unlikely to accept updates from random sources.  The original
authors are obviously the first place to start, but the namespace
should not languish if there are clarifications needed and the
original authors cannot be contacted.

Thanks again,
Leslie.

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"The best laid plans
    are written in pencil."
   -- ThinkingCat

Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------