A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Federated Content
RFC 4198

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2005-04-25 for -)
No email
send info
Spencer Dawkins said:

A quick look-through made me wonder about one detail - the whole point is to come up with a (domain name as of some date) convention to uniquely identify a content provider for all time - but the date only requires a four-digit year (CCYY), with month (MM) and day-of-month (DD) optional.

I'm sure this will work fine in practice, but my particular industry is off to the land of mergers and acquisitions again, so I would be more comfortable with requiring at least the month to be part of the date as well. The race condition is "name some resource on January 2, acquire some corporation on January 3, and start reusing domain name components for other purposes in October".

(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2005-04-20)
No email
send info
Please cite RFC 2119 in section 2.

References should be split normative/informative.

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) No Record

No Record (2005-04-24)
No email
send info
If I read Bill's message correctly, the question is, should domain names embedded
within example URNs be required to use example.com, example.net, and friends?

I don't think so.  I think the reason we require it in the general run of documents is
to avoid folks reading the documents from coding the examples into the protocol
and to avoid references to domain names which may change owner, content, and
so on in ways which would surprise someone dereferencing the URIs.  Given the
delegation model of the URN, I don't think that's an issue here.