Subject: [Ecrit] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-00.txt

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:28:11 -0500

The new working group draft is now available. It incorporates 
suggestions made by the URN mailing list and other reviewers. I believe 
that the draft is essentially done, except for deciding whether to use 
this draft to formally register the sos service types with IANA. I would 
appreciate feedback on the draft, but I don't foresee that having it sit 
around for a few more IETF meetings is going to substantially improve 
the draft.

[email-masked] wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Emergency Context Resolution with Internet Technologies Working Group of the IETF.
> 
> 	Title		: A Uniform Resource Name (URN) for Services
> 
> 	Author(s)	: H. Schulzrinne
> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-00.txt
> 	Pages		: 10
> 	Date		: 2006-2-17
> 	
> The content of many communication services depend on the context,
> such as the user's location.  We describe a 'service' URN that allows
> to register such context-dependent services that can be resolved in a
> distributed manner.
> 
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ecrit-service-urn-00.txt
> 

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:00:44 -0600

This ID should formally register the service types.

It appears to be a concrete way of putting a stake in the ground on this 
issue that everyone can point at.  Otherwise, other SDOs can say "no one 
has reeeally made a decision yet, have they?"  I've already heard this, so 
this isn't a prediction.

...and what's the harm in waiting around a few more meetings to see if any 
progress can be made in the text...

;-)

At 05:28 PM 2/17/2006 -0500, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>The new working group draft is now available. It incorporates suggestions 
>made by the URN mailing list and other reviewers. I believe that the draft 
>is essentially done, except for deciding whether to use this draft to 
>formally register the sos service types with IANA. I would appreciate 
>feedback on the draft, but I don't foresee that having it sit around for a 
>few more IETF meetings is going to substantially improve the draft.
>
>>This draft is a work item of the Emergency Context Resolution with 
>>Internet Technologies Working Group of the IETF.

---

From: Brian Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 20:39:13 -0500

I agree.  Put the service registration in this draft and last call it.

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:52:10 -0500

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/draft/service/draft-ietf-ecrit-service- 
urn-01.html has my initial attempt at a list. Please let me know if I  
missed any or if you have suggestions for better definitions of the  
services listed.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:43:14 -0500

Syntax has some problems:

      "URN:service:" top-level-service *("." service-identifier)
      top-level-service = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" /
      service-identifier = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" /

This only allows service identifiers to be one character each. Also, 
'service-identifier' is defined here, but 'sub-service' is defined in 
the text. And the top-level-service and the sub-service are 
syntactically identical, so there is no need to repeat that. I would 
suggest:

      "URN:service:" top-level-service *("." sub-service)
      top-level-service = service-identifier
      sub-service = service-identifier
      service-identifier = 1*(ALPHA / DIGIT / "-")

	Paul