Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 30 April 2014 01:06 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27CDB1A099F for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_I_LETTER=-2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yzQcnjovmPX7 for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x235.google.com (mail-qc0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22DC11A0909 for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id x3so1139036qcv.40 for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=E5tsCpwV7QBuAZH0I9DggnvGHNEWOK9segKB4sHV7TE=; b=FwkoYNNKZH3s9sRMqHpp2kH/Y+H9lZx+HbeRev2jgYQ+n9yxX3icU7u0qSSDsAoMgj 0+8Q0DfeYArCd0Z/ajzwXIh0VBZI80HIGfXIQUeW5AIaS/FB8uczn8IRV53N+vf0mz5n CJtRnPcgveytSsGRqeQVP1r85akO0PwMtliUOFOyScWDaoJYGb3bgkX0WFNpzwdv3cRq 0ps1lQ7+ziglHvVwx+WtMuyRL/3NdRPOoObLtjJLj8LSjasscLrGsgdIPdb6IdVNxzWU +s+4z0vFCXN6d0hgQhhRYdjoGSB1g3U8lKo5NDTlnRguxqJpA+7qTgvOElVVEYhHvgP7 a2Bg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.82.229 with SMTP id h92mr1155847qgd.51.1398819982676; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.224.136.134 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:06:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 21:06:22 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: T_akBdCwPBiaH9OfMYuWD0RzmS8
Message-ID: <CALaySJJk5YiCQZqt6WoWkqfAzi2A04HEAH=vG0pVAy8e45N5aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: draft-spinosa-urn-lex.all@tools.ietf.org, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/5Rg-oCWm--Sx21o2Iui67HWSqbQ
Cc: urn-nid@ietf.org, Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
X-BeenThere: urn-nid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussion of new namespace identifiers for URNs <urn-nid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn-nid/>
List-Post: <mailto:urn-nid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 01:06:29 -0000
This document was discussed on the urn-nid list between late March and mid-April 2013. At the time, Ted Hardie and Patrik Fältström commented, and the authors addressed some of their comments. In the end, I think that not all of their comments were adequately addressed, so I'm explicitly including Ted and Patrik in the "to" field here, to bring their attention to the publication request and to my AD review. Ted, Patrik, please check whether the current version https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-spinosa-urn-lex/ ...addresses your issues to your satisfaction, and also let me know if any of my comments below are totally off base. --- I am very uncomfortable with this document, for a number of reasons: 1. The use of two-character jurisdiction identifiers was brought up by Ted, and I'm not happy with the resolution, which seems to recommend massive renaming of existing -- possibly quite old -- documents in cases where the identifiers change. This is simply not practical, and goes against the concept that URNs be persistent. Obviously, no one can guarantee permanence, and persistence doesn't mean permanence. Nevertheless, when we can anticipate issues (and particularly when we have a demonstration than an issue has occurred, as is the case with "ai"), we should deal with them in a way that doesn't upset the entire apple cart. Ted suggested three-letter jurisdictions, which seems a reasonable approach. There might be others. Massive renaming of perhaps many thousands of years-old documents isn't a reasonable approach. 2. The whole "national characters" discussion in 3.4 seems odd. It was mentioned in the reviews, and corrections have been made. I can live with what's there now, but it still seems wrong to specify things this way -- see item 3 for more. 3. Section 3.5 is grossly language-dependent, and was so obviously written by people whose language supports what's demanded there. As it happens, turning "Ministry of Finance" into "ministry.finance" works fine in Italian, as well as in Spanish, French, and English. We have words that mean "the" and "of", and such, which we can eliminate. Languages such as Russian do not; the noun forms themselves change with the case, to give the meaning of the word "of" in "of finance" in the noun itself. "Ministry of Finance" in Russian is "министерство финансов" (Ministerstvo Finansov), but the nominative word for "Finance" would be "финансы" (Finansy). Should the Section 3.5 process have it normalized to "министерство.финансы", to eliminate the "of" that's implicit in the case of "финансов"? Does it matter? (And I don't even want to try to think about how this gets done in Chinese languages.) All this stuff in Sections 3.4 and 3.5 (and the later sections as well) would be fine if it were in a non-normative example of how one jurisdiction has chosen to create the names. But apart from the protocol requirements that have to do with required encoding of non-US-ASCII characters, having this stuff be normative just strikes me as wrong. And pointless: does it really matter *how* the names are assigned? It should simply be up to the jurisdiction to create the names, and if my jurisdiction chooses to name its documents as "urn:lex:barryland:000000000001", then "urn:lex:barryland:000000000002", and so on... or perhaps I want to use SHA-1 hashes, as in RFC 6920. Is that really a problem? If you really are trying to set up a system wherein the URN can be computed correctly from the document's title and other metadata, I submit that such an effort may work for some situations, but is doomed to fail in general. 4. You appear to be requiring that "urn:lex:" names work as locators in HTML hrefs. From Section 1.5: LEX names will be used on a large scale in references as a HREF attribute value of the hypertext link to the referred document. ...along with the whole "lex.urn.arpa" setup described in Section 6, and the registration of the NAPTR records. This is unprecedented, and, again, strikes me as wrong. URNs can be mapped into corresponding URLs, and being able to do so is what makes them useful, but it seems that such mappings will be very much jurisdiction-dependent, and it seems *very* unlikely that <a href="urn:lex:barryland:000000000001"> ...could be dereferenced as it stands. That would require that every browser (and every other application that processes these things) know how to dereference every jurisdiction's LEX names -- and you're depending upon the entire world building their resolution around your structure and the registry you aim to set up. Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding something, this just seems like it won't work. In any case, what you're describing in Section 6 is not a URN namespace, but a URI locator scheme. --- I have a couple of other comments, at a much lower severity than the others: - What's with the reference to W3C in the abstract? - Section 3.9 specifies what to do with ordinal numbers. Why are those called out specifically, while cardinal numbers aren't? Why should I handle "law relating to a second home" one way (ordinal number), and "law relating to two homes" (cardinal number) in a different way? But, again, this is related to my comment above about why any of this is normative, and that comment applies to all sections from 3.4 to 3.9. There seems to be a lot of stuff in Section 4's subsections that also specifies how these names should behave in practice, but is doing it with normative requirements on the contruction of the name itself. As with the things in Section 3, these seem nice as explanations of desirable (even required) characteristics, but wrong as normative mechanisms with respect to the name structure. Barry, Applications AD
- Fwd: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex Enrico Francesconi
- Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex Barry Leiba
- Re: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex Barry Leiba
- Re: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex Patrik Fältström
- Re: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex Enrico Francesconi
- Re: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex Enrico Francesconi
- Re: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex Enrico Francesconi
- Re: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex Barry Leiba
- Re: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex Enrico Francesconi
- Re: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex Barry Leiba
- Re: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex Enrico Francesconi
- Re: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex Barry Leiba
- Re: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex Dale R. Worley
- Re: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex Enrico Francesconi
- Re: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex Barry Leiba
- Re: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex Enrico Francesconi