%% You should probably cite draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn instead of this I-D.
@techreport{ah-rfc2141bis-urn-02,
    number =    {draft-ah-rfc2141bis-urn-02},
    type =      {Internet-Draft},
    institution =   {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force},
    note =      {Work in Progress},
    url =       {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ah-rfc2141bis-urn/02/},
    author =    {Alfred Hoenes},
    title =     {{Uniform Resource Name (URN) Syntax}},
    pagetotal = 21,
    year =      2010,
    month =     may,
    day =       31,
    abstract =  {Uniform Resource Names (URNs) are intended to serve as persistent, location-independent, resource identifiers. This document serves as the foundation of the 'urn' URI Scheme according to RFC 3986 and sets forward the canonical syntax for URNs, which subdivides URNs into "namespaces". A discussion of both existing legacy and new namespaces and requirements for URN presentation and transmission are presented. Finally, there is a discussion of URN equivalence and how to determine it. This document supersedes RFC 2141. The requirements and procedures for URN Namespace registration documents are currently set forth in RFC 3406, which is also expected to be updated by an independent, revised specification. Discussion This draft version has been obtained by importing the text from RFC 2141 into modern tools and making a first round of updating steps. It is intended to serve as one of the starting points for an effort to bring URN RFCs in alignment with STD 63, STD 68, BCP 26, and the requirements from emerging distributed national and international URN resolution systems, and advance them on the IETF Standards Track. Comments are welcome on the urn@ietf.org mailing list (or sent to the document editor).},
}