From stpeter@stpeter.im  Mon Oct  3 10:37:30 2011
Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5FD521F8C1C for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon,  3 Oct 2011 10:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.616
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.616 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0AllBozisP7q for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon,  3 Oct 2011 10:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB7621F8C17 for <urn@ietf.org>; Mon,  3 Oct 2011 10:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-178.cisco.com (unknown [64.101.72.178]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 422E9E84C9 for <urn@ietf.org>; Mon,  3 Oct 2011 11:44:43 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4E89F38F.6060605@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:40:31 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [urn] WG progress
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:37:30 -0000

<hat type='AD'/>

The following documents are currently expired (and indeed were last
updated in 2010):

* draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn
* draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn
* draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn
* draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg

The URNBIS WG had milestones to issue Working Group Last Calls on those
documents in February of 2011 and deliver them to the IESG in April.

The WG is now seriously behind schedule. Although there has been a bit
of discussion on the mailing list, the results of those discussions have
not been incorporated into updated Internet-Drafts. Furthermore, the WG
did not meet at IETF 81 and does not plan to meet at IETF 82.

If the WG does not make visible progress before IETF 82 (which I would
measure by, at least, updated versions of the chartered I-Ds), as the
responsible AD I will need to consider taking more drastic measures to
generate a successful outcome, or consider closing the WG.

Document authors, please note that the final submission cut-off before
IETF 82 is October 31, so you have 4 weeks to make some progress...

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/



From juha.hakala@helsinki.fi  Thu Oct 13 04:22:26 2011
Return-Path: <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565B421F8B7A for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.06
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.06 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, GB_SUMOF=5, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VeR5JNq5xdwX for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-rs1-vallila2.fe.helsinki.fi (smtp-rs1-vallila2.fe.helsinki.fi [128.214.173.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6893A21F8B30 for <urn@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.214.91.90] (kkkl25.lib.helsinki.fi [128.214.91.90]) by smtp-rs1.it.helsinki.fi (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9DBMIvR000513 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <urn@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:22:21 +0300
Message-ID: <4E96C9EA.8070605@helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:22:18 +0300
From: Juha Hakala <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [urn] Of RFC3187bis, RFC3188bis and namespace registrations in general
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:22:26 -0000

Hello,

I have written updated versions of

* draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn
* draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn

Some editorial help will be needed to publish them as Internet drafts; 
what I have now is two XML texts that need to be polished/converted to 
I-Ds. But I can send them either to the list (if that is OK) or anybody 
who is interested to review them.

Since these texts rely on unpublished new version of rfc2141bis that 
myself and Alfred Hoenes have been working on, I'd rather wait until the 
next version of rfc2141bis has been made available before publishing 
them as I-Ds. But the WG is, like Peter pointed out in his message a 
week ago, behind schedule. And as the fact that we have been working on 
new versions of the I-Ds has not been made clear in the messages sent to 
the list, it is easy to get an impression that nothing much is happening 
in this particular WG. So if need be I am prepared to make some 
shortcuts here.

Some comments concerning these namespace registrations and namespace 
registration process in general.

I have taken into account the discussions on the list, especially as 
regards <fragment>. For ISBN this was trivial, since ISBN standard does 
not allow <fragment> usage. For NBN this was more complicated; there are 
three different ways in which fragments can be dealt with within that 
namespace.

And this serves as an introduction to the first generic point, which is 
that the difficulty of writing a (decent) namespace registration has an 
inverse relation to the level of establishment the namespace has. ISBN 
is based on an international standard and it has been in production 
almost 40 years. It is easy to write a namespace registration to it, 
provided that the standard is not heavily modified and assignment 
practices do not change. No such changes are imminent in the case of ISBN.

It is more difficult to supply an accurate NBN namespace registration. 
We have fairly good idea of who uses URN:NBN and for what purposes, but 
still the scope is not self evident. Unlike the previous versions, the 
I-D I completed today explicitly allows NBN assignment to works (things 
that only exist in Plato's world of ideas, such as "Hamlet"). These 
URN:NBNs will be resolved to work level metadata, which should include 
links to manifestations of the work. ISBNs can not be assigned to works; 
there is another identifier (ISTC) for that purpose.

If you dislike the extension of the URN coverage to works, please 
discuss this topic on the list. For me, works may play a central role in 
the URN resolution since they are persistent (they are abstract entities 
that never change) whereas manifestations of digital resources are 
technology dependent and will not live long. But work level metadata is 
the bedrock to which we will be able to link all manifestations (and 
related works such as translations) related to a single work.

I can't recall if the scope of the URN system as a whole has ever been 
formally specified. This issue is a bit complicated since the scope of 
the URN is the sum of all scopes of the identifiers that have a URN 
namespace. It only takes one very large namespace such as UUID to cover 
almost everything. But it might still be useful to discuss this topic, 
in order to see if there is a consensus among the list subscribers.

Going back to NBN after this diversion, lots of things that are dictated 
by the base standard in the ISBN namespace, had to be written into the 
NBN namespace registration in order to make sure the users have an 
accurate enough idea of how to utilize URN:NBNs.

There are also namespaces where there seems to be very little control, 
that is, basically anyone can use them to identify anything at any time. 
At least for a librarian like myself identifier assignment should not be 
organised like this. UUID has been mentioned before as an example of 
namespace which may require (local) control mechanisms beyond the 
namespace registration to function well. These URNs may fulfill the 
basic syntactic requirement of being globally unique, but beyond that 
these namespaces cannot guarantee much, although there may be islands of 
reliable resolution within them.

As far as I am concerned, when a namespace registration is based on an 
international identifier standard such as ISBN, the RFC can / should be 
put on standard track. I am less certain what to do with NBN-like 
semi-established namespace registrations. At least IETF should take a 
good look at the communities behind them.

I am not sure (without checking e.g. how URN:UUIDs work in practice) if 
UUID-like namespaces are really useful. I doubt if the identified 
resources themselves, or anything meaningful their URNs might resolve 
to, will be in existence for long (from the national library point of 
view, meaning several decades or even centuries). In the worst case 
there may eventually be many low-quality namespaces where most URNs will 
not live much longer than URLs or cool URIs. Such namespaces might 
eventually undermine the value of the URN system as a whole.

I suppose that all this boils down to the question of control. Up to now 
IETF has operated on the basis of trust; as namespace registrations are 
informal RFCs they have not been (I suppose) scrutinized. Whether the 
level of control needs to be heightened is hard to say without making 
some kind of empirical check.

Best regards,

Juha
-- 

  Juha Hakala
  Senior advisor, standardisation and IT

  The National Library of Finland
  P.O.Box 15 (Unioninkatu 36, room 503), FIN-00014 Helsinki University
  Email juha.hakala@helsinki.fi, tel +358 50 382 7678

From stpeter@stpeter.im  Mon Oct 17 07:59:25 2011
Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D993D21F8B0D for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id szK0UsDKDkTr for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BC1321F8BBB for <urn@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-193.cisco.com (unknown [64.101.72.193]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0EBAF41E49 for <urn@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:04:14 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4E9C42CA.8080203@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:59:22 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
References: <4E89F38F.6060605@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4E89F38F.6060605@stpeter.im>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [urn] WG progress
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:59:26 -0000

Again, please note that the submission deadline before IETF 82 is two
weeks from today:

http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2011.html#IETF82

(I will reply separately to Juha's post about namespace registration.)

Peter

On 10/3/11 11:40 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> <hat type='AD'/>
> 
> The following documents are currently expired (and indeed were last
> updated in 2010):
> 
> * draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn
> * draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn
> * draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn
> * draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg
> 
> The URNBIS WG had milestones to issue Working Group Last Calls on those
> documents in February of 2011 and deliver them to the IESG in April.
> 
> The WG is now seriously behind schedule. Although there has been a bit
> of discussion on the mailing list, the results of those discussions have
> not been incorporated into updated Internet-Drafts. Furthermore, the WG
> did not meet at IETF 81 and does not plan to meet at IETF 82.
> 
> If the WG does not make visible progress before IETF 82 (which I would
> measure by, at least, updated versions of the chartered I-Ds), as the
> responsible AD I will need to consider taking more drastic measures to
> generate a successful outcome, or consider closing the WG.
> 
> Document authors, please note that the final submission cut-off before
> IETF 82 is October 31, so you have 4 weeks to make some progress...
> 
> Peter
> 

From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Mon Oct 17 15:16:12 2011
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4387A1F0C42; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:16:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.545
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aPugrpiZisOK; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FC211F0C36; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.60
Message-ID: <20111017221611.10606.26313.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:16:11 -0700
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01.txt
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:16:12 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies. This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names, Revised Worki=
ng Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Using International Standard Book Numbers as Uniform Res=
ource Names
	Author(s)       : Maarit Huttunen
                          Juha Hakala
                          Alfred Hoenes
	Filename        : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01.txt
	Pages           : 20
	Date            : 2011-10-17

   The International Standard Book Number, ISBN, is a widely used
   identifier for monographic publications.  Since 2001, the URN
   (Uniform Resource Name) namespace &quot;ISBN&quot; has been reserved for=
 ISBNs.
   The namespace registration was performed in RFC 3187 and applied only
   to the ISBN as specified in the ISO Standard 2108-1992, now known as
   &quot;ISBN-10&quot;.  To allow for further growth in use, the successor =
ISO
   Standard, ISO 2108:2005, has defined an expanded format for the ISBN,
   known as &quot;ISBN-13&quot;.  This document defines how both of these I=
SBN
   standard versions can be supported within the URN framework.
   Moreover, additional syntax related information required by the RFC
   2141[bis] has been included.  An updated namespace registration is
   provided.  It describes how both the old and the new ISBN format can
   share the same namespace.

   This document replaces RFC 3187; it also obsoletes and moves to
   Historic status the predecessor thereof, RFC 2288.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-0=
1.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01=
.txt

From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de  Mon Oct 17 15:31:56 2011
Return-Path: <A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B575011E80A2 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -96.449
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MANGLED_TOOL=2.3, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CVhoGYopYk4v for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2637911E8082 for <urn@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA006240556; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:29:16 +0200
Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id AAA22199; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:29:15 +0200 (MESZ)
From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= <ah@TR-Sys.de>
Message-Id: <201110172229.AAA22199@TR-Sys.de>
To: urn@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:29:14 +0200 (MESZ)
In-Reply-To: <20111017221611.10606.26313.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> from "internet-drafts@ietf.org" at Oct "17, " 2011 "03:16:11" pm
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01.txt
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 22:31:56 -0000

URNbis folks,
the IETF draft submission system has announced the availability
of an updated WG draft:

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names, Revised
> Working Group of the IETF.
>
>   Title       : Using International Standard Book Numbers as Uniform Resource Names
>   Author(s)   : Maarit Huttunen
>                 Juha Hakala
>                 Alfred Hoenes
>   Filename    : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01.txt
>   Pages       : 20
>   Date        : 2011-10-17
>
>    The International Standard Book Number, ISBN, is a widely used
>    identifier for monographic publications.  Since 2001, the URN
>    (Uniform Resource Name) namespace &quot;ISBN&quot; has been reserved for ISBNs.
>    The namespace registration was performed in RFC 3187 and applied only
>    to the ISBN as specified in the ISO Standard 2108-1992, now known as
>    &quot;ISBN-10&quot;.  To allow for further growth in use, the successor ISO
>    Standard, ISO 2108:2005, has defined an expanded format for the ISBN,
>    known as &quot;ISBN-13&quot;.  This document defines how both of these ISBN
>    standard versions can be supported within the URN framework.
>    Moreover, additional syntax related information required by the RFC
>    2141[bis] has been included.  An updated namespace registration is
>    provided.  It describes how both the old and the new ISBN format can
>    share the same namespace.
>
>    This document replaces RFC 3187; it also obsoletes and moves to
>    Historic status the predecessor thereof, RFC 2288.
>
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01.txt
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01.txt
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list
> urn@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn


[[ speaking as a co-author and editor of the draft ]]

The draft as well as a HTML diff to its predecessor version will soon
be available via the WG's "home page", http://tools.IETF.ORG/wg/urnbis/

The major differences of this draft version from its predecessor are
listed in Appendix A.2 of the new draft as follows:


A.2.  draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-00 to -01

   - discussion on persistence altered, based on list discussion;
   - changes and amendments to discussion of URN resolution services;
   - discussion of fragment part usage added;
   - broken link to ISBN manual fixed based on feedback from [ISBNORG];
   - various editorial fixes and enhancements.



Best regards,
  Alfred.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  ah@TR-Sys.de                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+


From stpeter@stpeter.im  Tue Oct 18 10:26:37 2011
Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5877821F8BA2 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.701
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.402, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CM+8NwH6lmUQ for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0964F21F8B92 for <urn@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-193.cisco.com (unknown [64.101.72.193]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 83EB241E49; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:31:29 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4E9DB6CB.6030303@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 11:26:35 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?QWxmcmVkIO+/vQ==?= <ah@TR-Sys.de>
References: <201110172229.AAA22199@TR-Sys.de>
In-Reply-To: <201110172229.AAA22199@TR-Sys.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01.txt
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 17:26:37 -0000

On 10/17/11 4:29 PM, Alfred � wrote:

> The draft as well as a HTML diff to its predecessor version will soon
> be available via the WG's "home page", http://tools.IETF.ORG/wg/urnbis/

That would be:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01.txt

/psa




From masinter@adobe.com  Tue Oct 18 12:18:32 2011
Return-Path: <masinter@adobe.com>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC9921F8D6D for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.449
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CVF9jlZm6omB for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod6og115.obsmtp.com (exprod6og115.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8E721F8D6A for <urn@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com ([193.104.215.16]) by exprod6ob115.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP;  Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:18:30 PDT
Received: from inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (inner-relay-4b [10.128.4.237]) by outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id p9IJIKBb024269; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nahub01.corp.adobe.com (nahub01.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.97]) by inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id p9IJIILV000736; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nahub01.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.97]) with mapi; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:18:18 -0700
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?QWxmcmVkIO+/vQ==?= <ah@TR-Sys.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 12:18:16 -0700
Thread-Topic: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01.txt
Thread-Index: AcyNuxn8PwfP6RXTS6OsNpJyGz6qkwADsCdA
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05D4AC0C2B@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
References: <201110172229.AAA22199@TR-Sys.de> <4E9DB6CB.6030303@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4E9DB6CB.6030303@stpeter.im>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01.txt
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 19:18:32 -0000
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From sm@resistor.net  Wed Oct 19 03:36:43 2011
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2B621F8AFE for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.337
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.262, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DKCZsUtjHD90 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E69E721F8AF6 for <urn@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:36:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p9JAaYjO025763 for <urn@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:36:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1319020599; bh=pBt1V1VIWfIqGXBGEWaF0G58FHkzXavbZeHTLv3wDV8=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=4Utnqn6djT4npVxGOBNfKf2wegEQCoUOnKX1PwNXVXXJbTebPIRPBqzcdup+PwbZz JtIkFZu+s/RmdJ0ur0Z08orAZCzTdLqudzxfQvwrIbEaa6dxxFwFMqKg8+F9poF1pP fsURKsuRBsMCdOnA82molDE8oCmhL6o+emSwWOys=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1319020599; bh=pBt1V1VIWfIqGXBGEWaF0G58FHkzXavbZeHTLv3wDV8=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=D/+fhXWUcI4QXRV+yyZhbOHCuTiTlbolJ9wEymTL9EygK/HlmB5TFnJ1E19H731UL qmFNoIe4QNtJ+xY9DQ/nJ9XQFPIBby2heuyzs7L7YPKFw7gP3NxKMRXKg4PLFmp4E5 86dlza8eNdnz9juplX08o9LyA3OqPGgo4jPoUhL8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111019023731.0aa22fe0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:13:20 -0700
To: urn@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:36:43 -0000

Hello,

I read draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01 as this working group 
has been inactive.

In Section 3.2:

   "As a rule, a digitized book does not get an ISBN, especially if the
    original printed book did not have one.  Instead, national
    bibliography numbers are often used for identification.  In such
    cases the digital copy MAY be found with the ISBN of the
    printed original."

Why is there a MAY in the last sentence?

In Section 4.1:

   "Each product form (e.g. hardcover, paperback, PDF) MUST have its
    own ISBN."

Why is this a MUST?

In Section 4.3.2:

   "A large union catalogue, such as WorldCat maintained by OCLC
    [OCLC-WC] CAN be used to complement the resolution services provided
    in the national level, or as the default service, if no national
    services exist or are known to the registry from which the query
    originates."

If I recall correctly, the CAN has already been pointed out.


   "Each product form MUST have a separate ISBN, but digital
    manifestation will not be long-lived."

Why is this a MUST?


   "Some users MAY prefer a modern manifestation although it MAY not
    have the original look and feel, while other users want the
    original manifestation which is authentic but MAY require digital
    archaeology for access."

Why are there MAYs in there?

   "URN:ISBN SHOULD support information architectures
    which enable persistent access to the relevant intellectual content
   (work), independent of its form"

Why is this a SHOULD?

The draft convey the ideas.  The text is readable.  The document 
proposes a means of encoding ISBNs within the URN framework.  I 
suggest focusing on that by providing clear steps on how that 
works.  Put the historical details in a separate section.  If you 
overload the reader with too much background information, the person 
may find it difficult to identify the parts that require coding 
attention.  Examples could be moved to an appendix.

Regards,
-sm


From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de  Wed Oct 19 15:34:57 2011
Return-Path: <A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF8711E808A for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:34:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.174
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.575, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KnL7Le+PUwwl for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C9D711E80B0 for <urn@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA016321714; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:01:55 +0200
Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id AAA25239; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:00:39 +0200 (MESZ)
From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= <ah@TR-Sys.de>
Message-Id: <201110192200.AAA25239@TR-Sys.de>
To: sm@resistor.net
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:00:38 +0200 (MESZ)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20111019023731.0aa22fe0@elandnews.com> from SM at Oct "19, " 2011 "03:13:20" am
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:34:57 -0000

SM,
thanks for the quick review.
Inline below are my personal comments as the document editor.
Juha and Maarit might want to follow up on specifics.


> Hello,
>
> I read draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01 as this working group
> has been inactive.
>
> In Section 3.2:
>
>    "As a rule, a digitized book does not get an ISBN, especially if the
>     original printed book did not have one.  Instead, national
>     bibliography numbers are often used for identification.  In such
>     cases the digital copy MAY be found with the ISBN of the
>     printed original."
>
> Why is there a MAY in the last sentence?

Yes, this (and a couple of other) "MAY" are not appropriate usage of
RFC 2114 language.  A lot of these indeed should be downcased; my
apologies for the editorial oversights.

According to my understanding, the last sentence above should better
say:

   "In such cases, it will likely be possible to find the digital copy
    with the ISBN of the printed original."


> In Section 4.1:
>
>    "Each product form (e.g. hardcover, paperback, PDF) MUST have its
>     own ISBN."
>
> Why is this a MUST?

That's a requirement from ISO 2108.
(Section 4.1 and its subsections make essential content of the
ISO standard readily available to the reader of this memo.)


> In Section 4.3.2:
>
>    "A large union catalogue, such as WorldCat maintained by OCLC
>     [OCLC-WC] CAN be used to complement the resolution services provided
>     in the national level, or as the default service, if no national
>     services exist or are known to the registry from which the query
>     originates."
>
> If I recall correctly, the CAN has already been pointed out.

Sorry, editorial omission; all instances of "CAN" in this section
will be downcased in the next draft version; similarly, many
instances of "MAY" in this section need to be downcased or replaced
by "might".


>    "Each product form MUST have a separate ISBN, but digital
>     manifestation will not be long-lived."
>
> Why is this a MUST?

See above -- as per ISO 2108.


>    "Some users MAY prefer a modern manifestation although it MAY not
>     have the original look and feel, while other users want the
>     original manifestation which is authentic but MAY require digital
>     archaeology for access."
>
> Why are there MAYs in there?

Suggested replacement:

     "Some users may prefer a modern manifestation although it might not
      have the original look and feel, while other users want the
      original manifestation that is authentic but might require digital
      archaeology for access."

Is that more reasonable?


>    "URN:ISBN SHOULD support information architectures
>     which enable persistent access to the relevant intellectual content
>    (work), independent of its form"
>
> Why is this a SHOULD?

Suggested replacement text:

     "...  Usage if "URN:ISBN will support information architectures
      that enable persistent access to the relevant intellectual content
      (work), independent of its form, although ..."


> The draft convey the ideas.  The text is readable.  The document
> proposes a means of encoding ISBNs within the URN framework.  I
> suggest focusing on that by providing clear steps on how that
> works.  Put the historical details in a separate section.  If you
> overload the reader with too much background information, the person
> may find it difficult to identify the parts that require coding
> attention.  Examples could be moved to an appendix.

Due to the persistency of assigned ISNB-10 and derived UNRs, most
text regarding ISBN-10 cannot be considered strictly "historical"
or "background" -- it is still of practical relevance for users
and resolution services.  Therefore IMHO separation of specifics
from RFC 3187 into a separate section does not make much sense;
the IANA registration of the namespace still needs to cover both
versions of ISBNs.

Similarly, placing examples into an appendix will likely not be
of much help for readers not very acquainted with bibliographic
identifiers, and would perhaps violate the requirements from
RFC 3406 and its planned successor, the rfc3406bis draft.


> Regards,
> -sm


Kind regards,
  Alfred.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  ah@TR-Sys.de                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+


From masinter@adobe.com  Wed Oct 19 18:32:50 2011
Return-Path: <masinter@adobe.com>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 145C11F0C41 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.292
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.292 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.307, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id itty9gZqR5dS for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod6og117.obsmtp.com (exprod6og117.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.39]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33D1A1F0C3B for <urn@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob117.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP;  Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:32:49 PDT
Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id p9K1UoYE022822; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nahub01.corp.adobe.com (nahub01.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.97]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id p9K1WO5R008667; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:32:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nahub01.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.97]) with mapi; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:32:24 -0700
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
To: "ah@TR-Sys.de" <ah@TR-Sys.de>, "sm@resistor.net" <sm@resistor.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 18:32:22 -0700
Thread-Topic: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01
Thread-Index: AcyOr1bWSPUvk+a1RY62C+C8oxJVHAAGANGQ
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05D4AC0EF4@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111019023731.0aa22fe0@elandnews.com> from SM at Oct "19, " 2011 "03:13:20" am <201110192200.AAA25239@TR-Sys.de>
In-Reply-To: <201110192200.AAA25239@TR-Sys.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 01:32:50 -0000

>>    "Each product form (e.g. hardcover, paperback, PDF) MUST have its
>>     own ISBN."
>
>> Why is this a MUST?

> That's a requirement from ISO 2108.

I think this is a specification for URNs, and the conformance requirements =
should apply to the URNs.  What you're saying here is a statement about som=
e OTHER standard, which I might write as:

"ISO 2108 requires that each product form (hardback, paperback, PDF) have i=
ts own ISBN."

This is just a statement of a fact about another standard, and URNs need to=
 function even in situations that don't exactly follow that requirement, fo=
r example, as mentioned, cases where people have digitized a hardcopy book =
from their own collection, but not assigned a different ISBN. =20

I think you should avoid using normative language for anything other than w=
hat a conforming URN and URN processing agent MUST/SHOULD/MAY do in order t=
o reach interoperability between communication agents using URNs in their c=
ommunication.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


From juha.hakala@helsinki.fi  Wed Oct 19 22:16:34 2011
Return-Path: <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1C1B11E8085 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.97
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.97 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.029,  BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HT4kDPuuPfPs for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-rs1-vallila2.fe.helsinki.fi (smtp-rs1-vallila2.fe.helsinki.fi [128.214.173.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4161811E807F for <urn@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.214.91.90] (kkkl25.lib.helsinki.fi [128.214.91.90]) by smtp-rs1.it.helsinki.fi (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9K5Ec0T023445 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:14:39 +0300
Message-ID: <4E9FAE3E.3040808@helsinki.fi>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:14:38 +0300
From: Juha Hakala <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111019023731.0aa22fe0@elandnews.com> from SM at Oct	"19, " 2011 "03:13:20" am <201110192200.AAA25239@TR-Sys.de> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05D4AC0EF4@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05D4AC0EF4@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:16:34 -0000

Hello,

Larry Masinter wrote:
>>>    "Each product form (e.g. hardcover, paperback, PDF) MUST have its
>>>     own ISBN."
>>> Why is this a MUST?
> 
>> That's a requirement from ISO 2108.
> 
> I think this is a specification for URNs, and the conformance requirements should apply to the URNs.  What you're saying here is a statement about some OTHER standard, which I might write as:
> 
> "ISO 2108 requires that each product form (hardback, paperback, PDF) have its own ISBN."
> 
> This is just a statement of a fact about another standard, and URNs need to function even in situations that don't exactly follow that requirement, for example, as mentioned, cases where people have digitized a hardcopy book from their own collection, but not assigned a different ISBN.  
> 
> I think you should avoid using normative language for anything other than what a conforming URN and URN processing agent MUST/SHOULD/MAY do in order to reach interoperability between communication agents using URNs in their communication.

As the author of the text, it was not clear to me where to draw the 
line. The current version of RFC3187bis makes it as explicit as possible 
that in the URN:ISBN namespace, every URN must conform to the ISO 2108. 
That is, every namespace specific string must be an ISBN; nothing more, 
nothing less. In addition, I have included some ISBN rules of assignment 
into the draft as MUSTs.

But I have no problem changing the draft so that the normative language 
is only used in the way Larry suggests. Detailed guidance on how to use 
ISBNs in the URN system can be produced separately, for instance in 
co-operation with the ISBN international centre.

Similar changes should be made to 3188bis as well. But there there is no 
external standard to refer to, so IMHO RFC3188bis should provide more 
information than RFC3187bis as regards what MUST/SHOULD/MAY be done.

Best regards,

Juha
> 
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list
> urn@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn
> 

-- 

  Juha Hakala
  Senior advisor, standardisation and IT

  The National Library of Finland
  P.O.Box 15 (Unioninkatu 36, room 503), FIN-00014 Helsinki University
  Email juha.hakala@helsinki.fi, tel +358 50 382 7678

From sm@resistor.net  Wed Oct 19 22:53:38 2011
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD70621F8AEC for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.403
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.403 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.197, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jXj5GhwS-RFd for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF6C11E807F for <urn@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p9K5pYC5006776; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1319089902; bh=SAN83k7H1JFHCHMTzmDb4of1ZcXSQIN2U4P6Gpw84zw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=WTDQaLo0qm08KBA/3kifouzQLXUpDTHDxHGaa/2ayyo5poeeP+76zlq1oGcmSTiea LSu8igYK3wQZIjQtRxjFIPEa3+Z5PlbL3p376Yha7QBbk+LdGYUdOe7fRJRDxzQ6XF 43JKhZ4srgop3QrK6rj1BJ/bFAKfG9ghwjHINXwU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1319089902; bh=SAN83k7H1JFHCHMTzmDb4of1ZcXSQIN2U4P6Gpw84zw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=wERXxxgBxsOVwpRfq4h38fFENSKn+ppvS0x99NB98y1qirU0Ab29S1MMkAu11ZiyM kT/SHb34BWSPEekMKvSH8jP4bDcId3T43Yd+YfycxEsa+mqYyxvWTU6s+Jdbko01s9 1pAUb29EnjiHBViRU/4poIiRaJLn4jYqvbNKF9AI=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111019221055.0c6ed8f8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:26:18 -0700
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, ah@TR-Sys.de
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05D4AC0EF4@nambxv01a.corp. adobe.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111019023731.0aa22fe0@elandnews.com> <201110192200.AAA25239@TR-Sys.de> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05D4AC0EF4@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:53:39 -0000

Hi Larry,
At 18:32 19-10-2011, Larry Masinter wrote:
> > That's a requirement from ISO 2108.
>
>I think this is a specification for URNs, and the conformance 
>requirements should apply to the URNs.  What you're saying here is a 
>statement about some OTHER standard, which I

That is the point I was trying to make.

>  might write as:
>
>"ISO 2108 requires that each product form (hardback, paperback, PDF) 
>have its own ISBN."

Yes.  I suggest writing the specification from an IETF implementation 
perspective and not an ISO perspective.

>This is just a statement of a fact about another standard, and URNs 
>need to function even in situations that don't exactly follow that 
>requirement, for example, as mentioned, cases where people have 
>digitized a hardcopy book from their own collection, but not 
>assigned a different ISBN.

Yes.

>I think you should avoid using normative language for anything other 
>than what a conforming URN and URN processing agent MUST/SHOULD/MAY 
>do in order to reach interoperability between communication agents 
>using URNs in their communication.

Yes.

Regards,
-sm 


From sm@resistor.net  Wed Oct 19 23:26:32 2011
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A605221F86B3 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.142
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.142 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iPh7jyDE+W0x for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2921421F86AA for <urn@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p9K6Q8pZ012855; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:26:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1319091978; bh=KkRlP+oiq5ue48UVyiqCsaLPT5PHMezrKzBMgrFSn3E=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=kOowWDdM4aYyuCha4c6N56Prx0w0nNNwrpKoGf+sRpFZUPTQK4DSiauYZb90eBDTq XX4nl/O+0AZgjEkThyBjUgD0aFR3N22/iS/VrA29bACzpuyVY6tHZ/h7txuO9K0PGl gtvNzg0muiTvjyjeQZeZTOXONDXtf/LmQXTOZnhs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1319091978; bh=KkRlP+oiq5ue48UVyiqCsaLPT5PHMezrKzBMgrFSn3E=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=No4sGtFq9jZNM/er7tHEBhJ88n9zMOJNsi36IuSpc+DBboy8O6T2dykwnBieK+DZ2 Sa+f87XzI18PADC0jbrFiFOLKeE4QApzD6/Q8JLs+CFM5n+F/o7+H3ygAVO169WGvC E5VCaEbRUI7tEPo3yAct6OGn1qYfqwtEfMrWjP60=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111019230313.086cb3d0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:23:16 -0700
To: Juha Hakala <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E9FAE3E.3040808@helsinki.fi>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111019023731.0aa22fe0@elandnews.com> <201110192200.AAA25239@TR-Sys.de> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D05D4AC0EF4@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4E9FAE3E.3040808@helsinki.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 06:26:32 -0000

Hi Juha,
At 22:14 19-10-2011, Juha Hakala wrote:
>As the author of the text, it was not clear to me where to draw the 
>line. The current

If I do not agree with the text you wrote, the practice is that I 
should suggest alternate text. :-)

>  version of RFC3187bis makes it as explicit as possible that in the 
> URN:ISBN namespace, every URN must conform to the ISO 2108. That 
> is, every namespace specific string must be an ISBN; nothing more, 
> nothing less. In addition, I have included some ISBN rules of 
> assignment into the draft as MUSTs.

If you spell out things clearly, as you did above, it is easier for the reader.

>But I have no problem changing the draft so that the normative 
>language is only used in the way Larry suggests. Detailed guidance 
>on how to use ISBNs in the URN system can be produced separately, 
>for instance in co-operation with the ISBN international centre.

I haven't looked into this.  I suggest taking up the matter with the 
WG chairs and see what they would like to do.

Regards,
-sm 


From sm@resistor.net  Sun Oct 23 16:06:20 2011
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F1FC21F8514 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.5
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099,  BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ULo8T9GZ0T1X for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6C821F8507 for <urn@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p9NN5uUe020395; Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1319411165; bh=lB9uPF3KrNQI6XgGUECnfsWpBeVQn7X/yXgOTRxP2kw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=4WMOYeNB5t3KQSQ6aErbj2E1voSraVvjwZ1+MINcYnkRdot52he9nwdpVkZWdfmRT IaCPKKtxIssj5W53+dDllmjZY9dixZq6i1+pivhSrN+stoSFeB2YRVL+PA6rb1CYnj TSgQ7NoIKos0AiML0UugytVzaZWgYo7tNJKFjiwo=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1319411165; bh=lB9uPF3KrNQI6XgGUECnfsWpBeVQn7X/yXgOTRxP2kw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=WzSCT0I1LwM+JS3tgjNyFKpfYxWrJyEnUNUQ0VWLQsKhGoKVBLmZiR6EPVdSqu/o+ /a9tDSWN7Mei5lf54ShjOddSoVgQgkVmbOAbdLSqplW7UfaS3l05ILUgnR/hI/Xq8y Frt9BnjETgDZopmAXBAw941OLJVes8vBh0ODOaE4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111023151256.098060f8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:59:48 -0700
To: Alfred <ah@TR-Sys.de>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <201110192200.AAA25239@TR-Sys.de>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111019023731.0aa22fe0@elandnews.com> <201110192200.AAA25239@TR-Sys.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] Comments on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 23:06:20 -0000

Hi Alfred,
At 15:00 19-10-2011, Alfred wrote:

>Yes, this (and a couple of other) "MAY" are not appropriate usage of
>RFC 2114 language.  A lot of these indeed should be downcased; my
>apologies for the editorial oversights.

Don't worry about the editorial oversight. :-)

>According to my understanding, the last sentence above should better
>say:
>
>    "In such cases, it will likely be possible to find the digital copy
>     with the ISBN of the printed original."

I suggest:

   In such cases, it is likely that digital copy can be found by using the
   ISBN of the printed book.

> > In Section 4.1:
> >
> >    "Each product form (e.g. hardcover, paperback, PDF) MUST have its
> >     own ISBN."
> >
> > Why is this a MUST?
>
>That's a requirement from ISO 2108.
>(Section 4.1 and its subsections make essential content of the
>ISO standard readily available to the reader of this memo.)

Larry Masinter suggested alternative text.  He also commented about 
the usage of "MUST".  Drop me a note and I'll expand on why the 
question was asked if it is not clear.

> >    "Each product form MUST have a separate ISBN, but digital
> >     manifestation will not be long-lived."
> >
> > Why is this a MUST?
>
>See above -- as per ISO 2108.

Quoting text from Larry:

   "ISO 2108 requires that each product form (hardback, paperback, PDF) have
    its own ISBN."

The above avoids the RFC 2119 keyword while still stating the ISO 
2108 requirement.

>Suggested replacement:
>
>      "Some users may prefer a modern manifestation although it might not
>       have the original look and feel, while other users want the
>       original manifestation that is authentic but might require digital
>       archaeology for access."
>
>Is that more reasonable?

Yes.

Coming back to "MAY", it's an optional feature in an 
implementation.  The text explains a user's preference and it does 
not have anything to do with an implementation.

>Suggested replacement text:
>
>      "...  Usage if "URN:ISBN will support information architectures
>       that enable persistent access to the relevant intellectual content
>       (work), independent of its form, although ..."

That sounds better.

>Due to the persistency of assigned ISNB-10 and derived UNRs, most
>text regarding ISBN-10 cannot be considered strictly "historical"
>or "background" -- it is still of practical relevance for users
>and resolution services.  Therefore IMHO separation of specifics
>from RFC 3187 into a separate section does not make much sense;
>the IANA registration of the namespace still needs to cover both
>versions of ISBNs.

I don't feel strongly about this.  I suggest getting more people to 
review the draft to gauge clarity.

>Similarly, placing examples into an appendix will likely not be
>of much help for readers not very acquainted with bibliographic
>identifiers, and would perhaps violate the requirements from
>RFC 3406 and its planned successor, the rfc3406bis draft.

Ok.

Regards,
-sm 


From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Sun Oct 30 13:12:00 2011
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3730121F8B6D; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.806
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.806 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.722, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ReTbaSNe7OrE; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3FD221F8B66; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.62
Message-ID: <20111030201159.14950.45362.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:11:59 -0700
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-01.txt
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:12:00 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies. This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names, Revised Worki=
ng Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Using National Bibliography Numbers as Uniform Resource =
Names
	Author(s)       : Juha Hakala
                          Alfred Hoenes
	Filename        : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-01.txt
	Pages           : 21
	Date            : 2011-10-26

   National Bibliography Numbers, NBNs, are widely used by the national
   libraries and other organizations in order to identify various
   resources such as digitized monographs and monographs pre-dating the
   emergence of the ISBN system.  Generally, NBNs may be applied to all
   kinds of resources that do not have an established (standard)
   identifier system of their own.

   A URN (Uniform Resource Names) namespace for NBNs was established in
   2001, and since then, tens of millions of unique URN:NBNs have been
   assigned.  The namespace registration was performed in RFC 3188 and
   applied to the NBNs in use at that point.  No URN:NBN resolution
   services existed at the time when that RFC was written.  Since then,
   national libraries in several countries including Finland, Germany,
   Italy, and the Netherlands have established these services.

   This document replaces RFC 3188 and defines how NBNs can be supported
   within the updated URN framework.  A revised namespace registration
   (version 4) is included.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-01=
.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-01.=
txt

From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de  Sun Oct 30 13:29:12 2011
Return-Path: <A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE2B321F8B79 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.608
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.374, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wtez0CzQbIVr for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D491421F8B74 for <urn@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA068636523; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:28:43 +0100
Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id VAA09584; Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:28:42 +0100 (MEZ)
From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= <ah@TR-Sys.de>
Message-Id: <201110302028.VAA09584@TR-Sys.de>
To: urn@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:28:41 +0100 (MEZ)
In-Reply-To: <20111030201159.14950.45362.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> from "internet-drafts@ietf.org" at Oct "30, " 2011 "01:11:59" pm
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-01.txt
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:29:12 -0000

The IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmission@ietf.org> wrote:

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the
> Uniform Resource Names, Revised Working Group of the IETF.
>
>    Title     : Using National Bibliography Numbers as Uniform Resource Names
>    Author(s) : Juha Hakala
>                Alfred Hoenes
>    Filename  : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-01.txt
>    Pages     : 21
>    Date      : 2011-10-26
>
>    National Bibliography Numbers, NBNs, are widely used by the national
>    libraries and other organizations in order to identify various
>    resources such as digitized monographs and monographs pre-dating the
>    emergence of the ISBN system.  Generally, NBNs may be applied to all
>    kinds of resources that do not have an established (standard)
>    identifier system of their own.
>
>    A URN (Uniform Resource Names) namespace for NBNs was established in
>    2001, and since then, tens of millions of unique URN:NBNs have been
>    assigned.  The namespace registration was performed in RFC 3188 and
>    applied to the NBNs in use at that point.  No URN:NBN resolution
>    services existed at the time when that RFC was written.  Since then,
>    national libraries in several countries including Finland, Germany,
>    Italy, and the Netherlands have established these services.
>
>    This document replaces RFC 3188 and defines how NBNs can be supported
>    within the updated URN framework.  A revised namespace registration
>    (version 4) is included.
>
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-01.txt
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-01.txt


[[ Speaking as a co-author and editor of this draft ]]

This updated I-D version contains numerous enhancements and
clarifications based on discussions stemming mostly from the
bibliographic community dealing with NBNs, and it also takes
into acount the outcome of the  most recent discussion on
draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01, applied accordingly.

The draft's Appendix sums up the changes in more detail.

Please take your time to review this draft and send comments.

Kind regards,
  Alfred.


P.S.: Due to technical and procedural issues, the submission
      of this draft has been delayed for several days; hopefully
      these issues will not recur for the updates in progress
      to the other WG drafts (rfc2141bis and rfc3406bis) intended
      to be out before the upcoming IETF I-D submission deadline.


From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Mon Oct 31 12:22:46 2011
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E86911E80DF; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.566
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eLvEdfI9OLk3; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F214811E8090; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.62
Message-ID: <20111031192245.18379.51658.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:22:45 -0700
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01.txt
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:22:46 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies. This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names, Revised Worki=
ng Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Uniform Resource Name (URN) Syntax
	Author(s)       : Alfred Hoenes
	Filename        : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01.txt
	Pages           : 28
	Date            : 2011-10-31

   Uniform Resource Names (URNs) are intended to serve as persistent,
   location-independent, resource identifiers.  This document serves as
   the foundation of the &#39;urn&#39; URI Scheme according to RFC 3986 and=
 sets
   forward the canonical syntax for URNs, which subdivides URNs into
   &quot;namespaces&quot;.  A discussion of both existing legacy and new
   namespaces and requirements for URN presentation and transmission are
   presented.  Finally, there is a discussion of URN equivalence and how
   to determine it.  This document supersedes RFC 2141.

   The requirements and procedures for URN Namespace registration
   documents are currently set forth in RFC 3406, which is also being
   updated by a companion, revised specification dubbed RFC 3406bis.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01.txt

From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de  Mon Oct 31 13:03:21 2011
Return-Path: <A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D34211E81DE for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.272
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.272 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.477, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id igFHkQryR8lj for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE3B11E81D8 for <urn@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 13:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA073931371; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:02:51 +0100
Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id VAA11600; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:02:46 +0100 (MEZ)
From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= <ah@TR-Sys.de>
Message-Id: <201110312002.VAA11600@TR-Sys.de>
To: urn@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 21:02:46 +0100 (MEZ)
In-Reply-To: <20111031192245.18379.51658.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> from "internet-drafts@ietf.org" at Oct "31, " 2011 "12:22:45" pm
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01.txt
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 20:03:21 -0000

The IETF I-D Submission Tool <internet-drafts at ietf.org> wrote:

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the
> Uniform Resource Names, Revised Working Group of the IETF.
>
>   Title      : Uniform Resource Name (URN) Syntax
>   Author(s)  : Alfred Hoenes
>   Filename   : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01.txt
>   Pages      : 28
>   Date       : 2011-10-31
>
>   Uniform Resource Names (URNs) are intended to serve as persistent,
>   location-independent, resource identifiers.  This document serves as
>   the foundation of the 'urn' URI Scheme according to RFC 3986 and sets
>   forward the canonical syntax for URNs, which subdivides URNs into
>   "namespaces".  A discussion of both existing legacy and new
>   namespaces and requirements for URN presentation and transmission are
>   presented.  Finally, there is a discussion of URN equivalence and how
>   to determine it.  This document supersedes RFC 2141.
>
>    The requirements and procedures for URN Namespace registration
>    documents are currently set forth in RFC 3406, which is also being
>    updated by a companion, revised specification dubbed RFC 3406bis.
>
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01.txt
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01.txt
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list
> urn@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn


[[ speaking as the document editor ]]

This draft version contains many updates,
as outlined in the new Appendix D.5 of the draft.

Most importantly, based on the list discussion, the open issue
regarding the NSS character repertoire is now regarded closed;
there have been no concerns raised against now allowing "&" and "~"
in the NSS syntax, and hence bringing it in alignment with RFC 3986.
Hence, much of the material from s2.2 has been moved to a new
Appendix (C), and Appendix B (previously: C) has been filled in now.
Please note also that the previous Appendix A has been moved to the
end of the memo and now has become Appendix E, which has caused
some renumbering of the more persistent Appendices of the draft.

Due to time constraints and technical issues I had in the past with
Internet/email access, the elaborations on the fragment identifier
issues have not yet been fully aligned with the vast amount of list
discussion we had in the past regarding this topic.  I regard this
topic as not yet finally closed, and will bring my considerations
to the list a.s.a.p.

So, in order to bring forward the discussion on the draft, please
currently focus on the other open issues tagged in (editorial) Notes
inside the draft, which have not received much comments so far.
In particular, we should hopefully be able to close the NID syntax
issues discussed in section 2.1 soon, with your help!

I plan to submit another revision of this draft during the IETF 82
week, once draft submission is open again.

Kind regards,
  Alfred.


From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Mon Oct 31 15:37:16 2011
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF2C11F0D39; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:37:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.57
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fZlzho-BOI5C; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4FF11F0D25; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.62
Message-ID: <20111031223713.9388.17742.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:37:13 -0700
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-01.txt
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:37:16 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies. This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names, Revised Worki=
ng Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace Definition Mechani=
sms
	Author(s)       : Alfred Hoenes
	Filename        : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-01.txt
	Pages           : 29
	Date            : 2011-10-31

   Uniform Resource Names (URNs) are intended to serve as persistent,
   location-independent, resource identifiers.  To structure and
   organize their usage, the URN syntax specifies a hierarchy that
   divides the set of possible URNs into &quot;URN Namespaces&quot; that ca=
n be
   individually defined and managed.  URN Namespaces in particular serve
   to map existing identifier systems into the URN system and thereby
   make available generic, network-based resolution services for the
   identified documents, artifacts, and other objects (and their
   metadata).

   To actually leverage such synergetic advantage, URN Namespaces need
   to be specified in a comparable manner, and their Namespace
   Identifiers (NIDs) need to be registered with IANA, so that naming
   conflicts are avoided and implementers of services can follow a
   structured approach in support of various namespaces, guided by the
   registry to the related documents and the particularities of specific
   namespaces, as described in these namespace registration documents.

   This document serves as a guideline for authors of URN Namespace
   definition and registration documents.  It describes the essential
   content of such documents and how they shall be structured to allow
   readers familar with the scheme to quickly assess the properties of a
   specific URN Namespace.  Further, this RFC describes the process to
   be followed to get a URN Namespace registered with IANA.

   This document is a companion document to the revised URN Syntax
   specification, RFC 2141bis; it supersedes and replaces RFC 3406.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg=
-01.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-=
01.txt

From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de  Mon Oct 31 15:52:26 2011
Return-Path: <A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2659811E8342 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.368
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.368 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.382, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O0H9EQx-kH6d for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D58211E833B for <urn@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA074751506; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 23:51:46 +0100
Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id XAA11909; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 23:51:45 +0100 (MEZ)
From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= <ah@TR-Sys.de>
Message-Id: <201110312251.XAA11909@TR-Sys.de>
To: urn@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 23:51:45 +0100 (MEZ)
In-Reply-To: <20111031223713.9388.17742.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> from "internet-drafts@ietf.org" at Oct "31, " 2011 "03:37:13" pm
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-01.txt
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:52:26 -0000

internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:

> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories. This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource
> Names, Revised Working Group of the IETF.
>
>   Title     : Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace Definition Mechanisms
>   Author(s) : Alfred Hoenes
>   Filename  : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-01.txt
>   Pages     : 29
>   Date      : 2011-10-31
>
>   Uniform Resource Names (URNs) are intended to serve as persistent,
>   location-independent, resource identifiers.  To structure and
>   organize their usage, the URN syntax specifies a hierarchy that
>   divides the set of possible URNs into "URN Namespaces" that can be
>   individually defined and managed.  URN Namespaces in particular serve
>   to map existing identifier systems into the URN system and thereby
>   make available generic, network-based resolution services for the
>   identified documents, artifacts, and other objects (and their
>   metadata).
>
>   To actually leverage such synergetic advantage, URN Namespaces need
>   to be specified in a comparable manner, and their Namespace
>   Identifiers (NIDs) need to be registered with IANA, so that naming
>   conflicts are avoided and implementers of services can follow a
>   structured approach in support of various namespaces, guided by the
>   registry to the related documents and the particularities of specific
>   namespaces, as described in these namespace registration documents.
>
>   This document serves as a guideline for authors of URN Namespace
>   definition and registration documents.  It describes the essential
>   content of such documents and how they shall be structured to allow
>   readers familar with the scheme to quickly assess the properties of a
>   specific URN Namespace.  Further, this RFC describes the process to
>   be followed to get a URN Namespace registered with IANA.
>
>   This document is a companion document to the revised URN Syntax
>   specification, RFC 2141bis; it supersedes and replaces RFC 3406.
>
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-01.txt
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-01.txt


[[ speaking as the draft author/editor ]]

This is mainly an editorial update, based on received review
comments and a bit of on-list discussion.

Please see the newly amended Appendix D in the draft for the
open issues that need on-list discussion, state your opinions,
and provide replacement text snippets where deemed appropriate.

The delta information summary for this version inadvertently has
been dropped during XML debugging; it will be restituted in the
next draft version.

Best regards,
  Alfred.