Skip to main content

Using Universal Content Identifier (UCI) as Uniform Resource Names (URN)
draft-sangug-uci-urn-02

Discuss


Yes

(Scott Hollenbeck)

No Objection

(Margaret Cullen)
(Russ Housley)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
(was No Objection, Yes) Discuss
Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2004-12-09) Unknown
I am assured that normal procedure for URN review has been followed.
However, the following issue discovered by Leslie Daigle should be addressed.

draft-sangug-uci-urn-00.txt says:

>       The Namespace specific string of all URNs assigned by NCA conforms
>       to the syntax defined in section 2.2. of RFC2141, "URN Syntax"[1]. 

and,

>      UCI = prefix "-" instance *1(":" qualifier)
>       
>       prefix = 1*(alphaDigit) *1(":" 1*(alphaDigit)) 
>                *1("+" 1*(alphaDigit))
>       instance = 1*(trans / "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG)
>       qualifier = head 1*(alphaDigit) *2("-" head 1*(alphaDigit))     
>       trans = alphaDigit / other / reserved
>       alphaDigit = ALPHA / DIGIT
>       head = "C" / "R" / "F"             
>       other = "(" / ")" / "+" / "," / "-" / "." / "=" / "@" /
>               ";" / "$" / "_" / "!" / "*" / "'"       
>       reserved = "%" / "/" / "?" / "#"


while the URN syntax document, RFC2141, says:
> 2.3.2 The other reserved characters
> 
>    RFC 1630 [2] reserves the characters "/", "?", and "#" for particular
>    purposes. The URN-WG has not yet debated the applicability and
>    precise semantics of those purposes as applied to URNs. Therefore,
>    these characters are RESERVED for future developments.  Namespace
>    developers SHOULD NOT use these characters in unencoded form, but
>    rather use the appropriate %-encoding for each character.


I *think* what you're trying to do is express that the UCI
URN will support "/", "?", and "#" in whatever fashion the URN
specification eventually determines.

However, I also think that, the way it is expressed in your syntax,
it would be very easy to believe the characters could appear
as valid characters (in unescaped form) in a UCI URN, and that
would be a mistake.

Therefore, I think it would be better to either remove them
from the list of characters that can appear in a UCI URN,  or
refer the reader directly, at that line of syntax, to the URN
syntax definition for use and meaning.
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
(was Discuss, No Objection) Yes
Yes () Unknown

                            
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2005-03-18) Unknown
Removing Harald's discuss - he and Leslie are satisfied that
the new version resolves the concern Leslie had.
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown