Skip to main content

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

No Objection

(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Mark Townsley)
(Russ Housley)

No Record


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

Bill Fenner Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2005-04-25) Unknown
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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

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

                            
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2005-04-20) Unknown
Please cite RFC 2119 in section 2.

References should be split normative/informative.
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes) No Record
No Record (2005-04-24) Unknown
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.