Using Universal Content Identifier (UCI) as Uniform Resource Names (URN)
RFC 4179

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

(Harald Alvestrand) (was No Objection, Yes) Discuss

Discuss (2004-12-09 for -)
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.
Comment (2004-12-01 for -)
No email
send info
Reviewed by Scott Brim, Gen-ART

His review:

Technically it's acceptable although idnits wants the boilerplate fixed.
This is an individual draft, destined to be informational.  It's out of
my area, but I don't know of any conflicts with specific IETF work.

(Scott Hollenbeck) (was Discuss, No Objection) Yes

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2005-03-18 for -)
No email
send info
Removing Harald's discuss - he and Leslie are satisfied that
the new version resolves the concern Leslie had.

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection