From prvs=0378f007d0=bengt.neiss@kb.se Wed Feb 1 06:18:47 2012 Return-Path: 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 E1AAC11E8469 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 06:18:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.419 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.630, BAYES_50=0.001, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6] 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 nhn0cwD+APws for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 06:18:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mspkb002.kb.se (mspkb002.kb.se [193.10.72.137]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AECA911E8386 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 06:18:45 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: mspkb002.kb.se header.from=bengt.neiss@kb.se; domainkeys=neutral (no sig) From: Bengt Neiss To: "urn@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Some more thoughts on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-02 Thread-Index: AczgwLqh60MhIECpQ0CpKzlknPVnhw== Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 14:18:33 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US Content-Language: sv-SE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F52230A186DA59469E8E21CF80FE6D4D0F23F851SRVVM305kblocal_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Received-SPF: none Subject: [urn] Some more thoughts on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-02 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:18:48 -0000 --_000_F52230A186DA59469E8E21CF80FE6D4D0F23F851SRVVM305kblocal_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello all.. Some more thoughts on the text.. 1. Page 6, first paragraph, last sentence says the following - "All m= anifestations of a resource SHOULD be interlinked, for example via providin= g persistent links in the descriptive metadata". I think we need to define = or explain what we mean with the term "persistent link" in this document. I= t's a term that, I believe, have a slightly different meaning in different = user communities. 2. Page 13, a paragraph near the end states that "All two-letter code= s are reserved by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency for either existing and p= ossible future ISO country codes (or for private use)". I think this paragr= aph is somewhat redundant and could be removed due to the fact that in the = formal declaration for the NSS we state that the "iso_cc" part is "country = code as assigned by ISO 3166" and as I understand it two-letter codes (that= aren't ISO 3166 codes) are allowed as a "subspc", like urn:nbn:se:kb:abc-1= 23. 3. On page 7, second paragraph from top has a sentence that says "In = these cases , the resolution process SHOULD link the URN:NBN to a URI belon= ging to an object such as a text file containing a chapter of a book". I th= ink the word "link" should be "resolve" in this sentence. Is the term "URI"= the correct one to use or should it be changed to "URL" possibly. 4. I think there is a need to revise the use of the acronym NBN in th= e text. Sometimes it refers to National Bibliography Number in a literal se= nse and sometimes, it seems to me, being used in the meaning URN:NBN. It co= uld be a source for confusion for readers. It might be that my English is n= ot good enough though...so... 5. I think there is an error in chapter 1.2, Background properties of= URNs, in "draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-01" where it states that the pr= operties found in RFC 1738 etc. Shouldn't it be RFC 1737. 6. One more thing - should text-proposals be sent to the list or dire= ctly to the editor(s)? Regards, //Bengt --------------------------------------------------------- Bengt Neiss Kungl. Biblioteket / National Library of Sweden Phone: +46 (0)10 709 35 41 --_000_F52230A186DA59469E8E21CF80FE6D4D0F23F851SRVVM305kblocal_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello all..

 

Some more thoughts on the text.= .

 

1. &nbs= p;     Page 6, first paragraph= , last sentence says the following – “All manifestations of a r= esource SHOULD be interlinked, for example via providing persistent links i= n the descriptive metadata”. I think we need to define or explain what we mean with the term “persistent link”= in this document. It’s a term that, I believe, have a slightly diffe= rent meaning in different user communities.

 

2. &nbs= p;     Page 13, a paragraph ne= ar the end states that “All two-letter codes are reserved by the ISO = 3166 Maintenance Agency for either existing and possible future ISO country= codes (or for private use)”. I think this paragraph is somewhat redundant and could be removed due to the fact that = in the formal declaration for the NSS we state that the “iso_cc”= ; part is “country code as assigned by ISO 3166” and as I under= stand it two-letter codes (that aren’t ISO 3166 codes) are allowed as a “subspc”, like urn:nbn:se:kb:abc-123. =

 =

3. &nbs= p;     On page 7, second parag= raph from top has a sentence that says “In these cases , the resoluti= on process SHOULD link the URN:NBN to a URI belonging to an object such as = a text file containing a chapter of a book”. I think the word “link” should be “resolve” in thi= s sentence. Is the term “URI” the correct one to use or should = it be changed to “URL” possibly.

 =

4. &nbs= p;     I think there is a need= to revise the use of the acronym NBN in the text. Sometimes it refers to N= ational Bibliography Number in a literal sense and sometimes, it seems to m= e, being used in the meaning URN:NBN. It could be a source for confusion for readers. It might be that my Englis= h is not good enough though…so…

 =

5.       I think there is an err= or in chapter 1.2, Background properties of URNs, in “draft-ietf-urnb= is-rfc2141bis-urn-01” where it states that the properties found in RF= C 1738 etc. Shouldn’t it be RFC 1737.

 =

6.       One more thing - should= text-proposals be sent to the list or directly to the editor(s)?

 

Regards,

 

//Bengt

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------

Bengt Neiss

Kungl. Biblioteket / National Library of Sweden

Phone: +46 (0)10 709 35 41

 

--_000_F52230A186DA59469E8E21CF80FE6D4D0F23F851SRVVM305kblocal_-- From juha.hakala@helsinki.fi Wed Feb 1 06:53:47 2012 Return-Path: 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 1069221F8771 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 06:53:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.922 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.677, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 RNuZXvilNH7t for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 06:53:45 -0800 (PST) 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 0D08C21F876F for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 06:53:44 -0800 (PST) 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 q11Ereco027657 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:53:40 +0200 Message-ID: <4F2951F4.6060705@helsinki.fi> Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:53:40 +0200 From: Juha Hakala User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bengt Neiss References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "urn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [urn] Some more thoughts on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-02 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:53:47 -0000 Hello Bengt, I will take the comments 1-5 into account when preparing the next version of rfc3188bis. An immediate response to comment 6 is below. Bengt Neiss wrote: > > > Hello all.. > > > > Some more thoughts on the text.. > 6. One more thing - should text-proposals be sent to the list or > directly to the editor(s)? It is better to send them to the list, because that fosters discussion and makes the life of the editor easier - a comment does not need to be replicated, when people see that it has been made already. All the best, Juha > > Regards, > > > > //Bengt > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Bengt Neiss > > Kungl. Biblioteket / National Library of Sweden > > Phone: +46 (0)10 709 35 41 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Feb 9 12:30:12 2012 Return-Path: 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 E009721F8606 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:30:12 -0800 (PST) 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=[AWL=0.000, 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 5y8CXc7pX7tm for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:30:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4852721F8605 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:30:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from squire.local (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D6B640058; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:40:45 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4F342CD1.8010503@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:30:09 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Reschke References: <201201241421.PAA01865@TR-Sys.de> <4F1FF692.4090700@helsinki.fi> <4F1FF9E2.7020800@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4F1FF9E2.7020800@gmx.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [urn] A 'newbie' question on the terminology used in RFCs 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:30:13 -0000 On 1/25/12 5:47 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-01-25 13:33, Juha Hakala wrote: >> Hello, >> >> RFC 2119, which is the sole authority as regards this issue, uses >> (certainly intentionally) both upper-case and lower-case versions of >> these words, and these terms do have different semantics: >> ... > > Again, reasonable people disagree on this, and you will questions about > this again and again. The easiest fix is to avoid the issue by simply > not using the lowercase variants. +1. That's been my policy of late when writing specs. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Feb 9 12:47:48 2012 Return-Path: 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 D7F0721F8663 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:47:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, 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 Z9-7ZrG+nUdG for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:47:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF70321F8613 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:47:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from squire.local (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 044ED40058; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:58:20 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4F3430F2.8050008@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:47:46 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?QWxmcmVkIO+/vQ==?= References: <201201241437.PAA01961@TR-Sys.de> In-Reply-To: <201201241437.PAA01961@TR-Sys.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 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] Some initial thoughts on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-02 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:47:49 -0000 On 1/24/12 7:37 AM, Alfred � wrote: > At 2012-01-24, Bengt Neiss wrote: >> 2. The sentence "Future NBN implementations SHOULD make the NBN >> string case insensitive as well". Is this a relevant statement? >> Since it seems to be that the nbn_string may be case-sensitive >> depending on syntax applied locally (ie. already implemented) and >> URN:s are persistent the case-sensitivity of the nbn_string must >> always be taken into consideration... > > The intent here was to refer to new usages of URN:NBNs, i.e. > national libraries and institutions that newly establish and/or > formalize NBNs and build national support services for URN:NBN > for their ISO 3166 URN:NBN prefix. > > So there should not be backwards compatibility issues at the URN > level, but of course legacy NBN usage within the scope of the > future adoptors needs to be addressed, which might lead to a > legitimate exemption of the "SHOULD" quoted above. > > Question to the list: > Would you prefer to drop the quoted "SHOULD" recommendation ? Drop the "SHOULD" in favor of what? Indeed, I find these two sentences to be in tension: The NBN string MAY be case sensitive, depending on the NBN syntax applied locally. Future NBN implementations SHOULD make the NBN string case insensitive as well. I read this as "it is OPTIONAL for existing implementations to treat the NBN string as case-sensitive, but RECOMMENDED for new implementations to treat the NBN string as case-insensitive". Why the different policies for new and existing implementations? IMHO it would be better to have the same policy for all. Since RFC 3188 did not provide global rules ("Any national library may provide its own rules, on the basis of its NBN syntax."), it seems better to err on the side of caution by saying that in general NBN strings are case-sensitive, since RFC 2141 says: Some namespaces may define additional lexical equivalences, such as case-insensitivity of the NSS (or parts thereof). Additional lexical equivalences MUST be documented as part of namespace registration, MUST always have the effect of eliminating some of the false negatives obtained by the procedure above, and MUST NEVER say that two URNs are not equivalent if the procedure above says they are equivalent. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Feb 9 13:23:40 2012 Return-Path: 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 0734E11E808A for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:23:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.239 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.239 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, 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 Essipvmr1dzU for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:23:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A1711E8085 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 13:23:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from squire.local (unknown [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BA9B40058; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:34:12 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4F343959.5040702@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:23:37 -0700 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?QWxmcmVkIO+/vQ==?= References: <201201191701.SAA02623@TR-Sys.de> In-Reply-To: <201201191701.SAA02623@TR-Sys.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.5 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-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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:23:40 -0000 On 1/19/12 10:01 AM, Alfred � wrote: > > On 2012-01-19, Lars Svenson wrote: > >> And a final thought about Lexical Equivalence (out of scope for >> 2141bis, but relevant to 3406bis): >> If I have a namspace that allows characters which I must percent- >> encode in a URN (like '������'), how can I specify that the NSS >> '���' is lexically equivalent to '���'? > > A namespace that needs/wants to incorporate non-ASCII characters > (which will be first UTF-8 encoded and then percent-encoded for > inclusion in URNs) needs to determine its appropriate rules. > In case of roman characters with accents, the case mapping > properties and normalization rules/forms specified by the > Unicode Standard might be good candidates to draw from. The WG might also consider mapping rules such as those in RFC 5895, for example: 1. Uppercase characters are mapped to their lowercase equivalents by using the algorithm for mapping case in Unicode characters. and: 3. All characters are mapped using Unicode Normalization Form C (NFC). > In general and ultimately, any equivalence not easily expressible > in syntax rules will need to be instantiated by the registration / > resolution systems for a specific namespace, and the methods for > implementation are strictly a "local" matter for the maintainers > of the registration system(s). > > A similar problem is well-known for domain names, where it is > well-known that, in particular for non-roman scripts, > "human-friendly" equivalence for identifiers is impossible to > be specified on an "absolute base" and achieved in a distributed > manner because human-perceived equivalence is frequently culture > and context dependent; hence, in the context of the DNS, only > the name registration system and the authoritative servers for a > domain can implement and enforce the non-ASCII equivalence rules > intended for that particular domain. > > So, in your example above, the respective namespace document could > specify a "normal form" of the NSS for that namespace and the rules > to achieve it (e.g., Unicode NFxx normalization and case mapping to > lower-case), or it could simply state that any appropriate > equivalence will be deliverd by the resolution system. If we say that all equivalence is the responsibility of the resolution system, then how are URN implementations supposed to process or compare URNs in a consistent fashion? It seems more helpful to specify some mapping rules that are applied before percent-encoding occurs. > Therefore, and in fact, for some namespaces, _lexical_ equivalence > of URNs (i.e., what a client system can determine) might become > less important than _semantical_ equivalence (implemented in the > registration / resolution services). I doubt that we'll ever agree on semantic equivalence, and in any case I think that's out of scope for our work here (RFC 2141 speaks of lexical equivalence and IMHO the best we can hope for is to clarify exactly what we mean by that). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de Fri Feb 10 12:22:24 2012 Return-Path: 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 7DD8E21F878A for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:22:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.093 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.093 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, 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 awIxLyDd2cUt for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:22:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3FD621F88C0 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:22:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA279425285; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:21:25 +0100 Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id VAA25016; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:21:24 +0100 (MEZ) From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= Message-Id: <201202102021.VAA25016@TR-Sys.de> To: stpeter@stpeter.im Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:21:24 +0100 (MEZ) In-Reply-To: <4F3430F2.8050008@stpeter.im> from Peter Saint-Andre at Feb "9, " 2012 "01:47:46" pm X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [urn] Some initial thoughts on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-02 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:22:25 -0000 At 2012-02-09, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > > On 1/24/12 7:37 AM, Alfred HÎnes wrote: > >> At 2012-01-24, Bengt Neiss wrote: > > > >>> 2. The sentence "Future NBN implementations SHOULD make the NBN >>> string case insensitive as well". Is this a relevant statement? >>> Since it seems to be that the nbn_string may be case-sensitive >>> depending on syntax applied locally (ie. already implemented) and >>> URN:s are persistent the case-sensitivity of the nbn_string must >>> always be taken into consideration... >> >> The intent here was to refer to new usages of URN:NBNs, i.e. >> national libraries and institutions that newly establish and/or >> formalize NBNs and build national support services for URN:NBN >> for their ISO 3166 URN:NBN prefix. >> >> So there should not be backwards compatibility issues at the URN >> level, but of course legacy NBN usage within the scope of the >> future adoptors needs to be addressed, which might lead to a >> legitimate exemption of the "SHOULD" quoted above. >> >> Question to the list: >> Would you prefer to drop the quoted "SHOULD" recommendation ? > > Drop the "SHOULD" in favor of what? The idea was meant literally: Drop this recommendation; period. > Indeed, I find these two sentences to be in tension: > > The NBN string MAY be case > sensitive, depending on the NBN syntax applied locally. Future NBN > implementations SHOULD make the NBN string case insensitive as well. Exactly, that's the primary reason why I suggested dropping the 2nd sentence again. > I read this as "it is OPTIONAL for existing implementations to treat the > NBN string as case-sensitive, but RECOMMENDED for new implementations to > treat the NBN string as case-insensitive". > > Why the different policies for new and existing implementations? IMHO it > would be better to have the same policy for all. Since RFC 3188 did not > provide global rules ("Any national library may provide its own rules, > on the basis of its NBN syntax."), it seems better to err on the side of > caution by saying that in general NBN strings are case-sensitive, since > RFC 2141 says: > > Some namespaces may define additional lexical equivalences, such as > case-insensitivity of the NSS (or parts thereof). Additional lexical > equivalences MUST be documented as part of namespace registration, > MUST always have the effect of eliminating some of the false > negatives obtained by the procedure above, and MUST NEVER say that > two URNs are not equivalent if the procedure above says they are > equivalent. Indeed, that's the spirit. Hence, if a new "implementation" (i.e. another national library that starts adopting usage of URN:NBN) opts to formalize their NBN-strings as being case-insensitive, they need to provide a resolution service that implements this -- resolution clients should not be hampered with that equivalence and need to continue treating all NBN-strings as case-sensitive. However, human users generally kind of seem to expect NBN-strings to be case-insensitive as well -- in the same manner as most Internet Mail users assume the local part of email addresses to be case- insensitive, although they formally aren't, while common mailbox systems allow their admins a configuration option to treat the local part of email addresses within their own domains as case- insensitive -- so the idea was to state a rather strong suggestion for new implementations of URN:NBN branches to reduce user surprise by defining their NBN-strings as case-insensitive as well. We will try to re-phrase the text in the next draft version to clarify this intent, without using RFC 2119 terms. Best regards, Alfred. > Peter > > -- > Peter Saint-Andre > https://stpeter.im/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Feb 16 04:41:26 2012 Return-Path: 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 E698721F87DF; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 04:41:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, 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 0t1GflfcxC0F; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 04:41:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7998721F87B5; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 04:41:21 -0800 (PST) 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: 3.64p2 Message-ID: <20120216124121.2623.96694.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 04:41:21 -0800 Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-02.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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 12:41:26 -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-02.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2012-02-16 The International Standard Book Number, ISBN, is a widely used identifier for monographic publications. Since 2001, the URN (Uniform Resource Name) namespace "ISBN" 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 "ISBN-10". To allow for further growth in use, the successor ISO Standard, ISO 2108:2005, has defined an expanded format for the ISBN, known as "ISBN-13". This document defines how both of these ISBN standard versions can be supported within the URN framework. Moreover, additional syntax related information required by 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= 2.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-02= .txt From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de Thu Feb 16 05:53:29 2012 Return-Path: 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 2274D21F874F for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:53:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.964 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.964 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.785, 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 SeJpvVUjxHWN for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:53:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF3421F8646 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:53:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA022400255; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:50:55 +0100 Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id OAA05281; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:50:52 +0100 (MEZ) From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= Message-Id: <201202161350.OAA05281@TR-Sys.de> To: masinter@adobe.com, sm@resistor.net, julian.reschke@gmx.de Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:50:52 +0100 (MEZ) X-Mailer: ELM [$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] (fwd) I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-02 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:53:29 -0000 [[ speaking as the document editor ]] I have uploaded a new version of the rfc3187bis (URN:ISBN) draft, which has undergone general edits according to your review comments since submission of the -01 version last October. ----- Forwarded message from internet-drafts@ietf.org ----- > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: urn@ietf.org > Message-Id: <20120216124121.2623.96694.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 04:41:21 -0800 > Subject: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-02.txt 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 Ju ha Hakala Al fred Hoenes Filename : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-02.txt Pages : 21 Date : 2012-02-16 Abstract The International Standard Book Number, ISBN, is a widely used identifier for monographic publications. Since 2001, the URN (Uniform Resource Name) namespace "ISBN" 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 "ISBN-10". To allow for further growth in use, the successor ISO Standard, ISO 2108:2005, has defined an expanded format for the ISBN, known as "ISBN-13". This document defines how both of these ISBN standard versions can be supported within the URN framework. Moreover, additional syntax related information required by 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-02.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-02.txt ----- End of forwarded message from internet-drafts@ietf.org ----- As usual, a HTML-ized version of the draft is accessible at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-02 and from there, prior versions and related 'htmldiff's are available. Summary of changes, as listed in the draft: > Appendix A. Draft Change Log > > [...] > > A.3. draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-01 to -02 > > - addressed review comments by LM and SM; > - cleanup of requirements language, but > - kept RFC 2119 terms where non-canonical/non-intuitive behavior of > resolver systems is specified; > - URLs for ISBN user manual (new public version) etc. updated; > - numerous editorial updates, fixes, and enhancements. Please check whether your concerns have been addressed sufficiently. The authors believe that this draft has no more outstanding issues beyond the textual updates needed to track the progress of the rfc2141bis and rfc3406bis drafts. 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 internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Feb 16 07:12:34 2012 Return-Path: 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 750F821F87FB; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:12:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.589 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, 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 PNjHSG2mxrFU; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:12:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 300F021F87EB; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:11:36 -0800 (PST) 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: 3.64p2 Message-ID: <20120216151136.13412.310.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:11:36 -0800 Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-03.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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:12:34 -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-03.txt Pages : 19 Date : 2012-02-16 National Bibliography Numbers, NBNs, are widely used by the national libraries and other organizations in order to identify various resources such as digitized monographs. 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 in RFC 3188. Since then, several European national libraries have implemented URN:NBN-based systems. 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-03= .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-03.= txt From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de Thu Feb 16 07:32:40 2012 Return-Path: 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 57A1621F8642 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:32:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.095 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.654, 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 5Ue+ApS48xrT for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:32:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D5C21F87E2 for ; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:32:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA023016298; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:31:38 +0100 Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id QAA05826; Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:31:36 +0100 (MEZ) From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= Message-Id: <201202161531.QAA05826@TR-Sys.de> To: bengt.neiss@kb.se, L.Svensson@dnb.de Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:31:36 +0100 (MEZ) X-Mailer: ELM [$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] (fwd) I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-03 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 15:32:40 -0000 [[ speaking as the document editor ]] I have uploaded a new version of the rfc3188bis (URN:NBN) draft, which has undergone a couple of edits according to comments received since submission of the -02 version a month ago. ----- Forwarded message from internet-drafts@ietf.org ----- > From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: urn@ietf.org > Message-Id: <20120216151231.13412.98480.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:12:31 -0800 > Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-03.txt 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,txt Pages : 19 Date : 2012-02-16 Abstract National Bibliography Numbers, NBNs, are widely used by the national libraries and other organizations in order to identify various resources such as digitized monographs. 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 in RFC 3188. Since then, several European national libraries have implemented URN:NBN-based systems. 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-03.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-03.txt ----- End of forwarded message from internet-drafts@ietf.org ----- As usual, a HTML-ized version of the draft is accessible at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-03 and from there, prior versions and related 'htmldiff's are available. Summary of changes, as listed in the draft: > Appendix A. Draft Change Log > > [...] > > A.4. draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-02 to -03 > > - improved text related to "prefix" in NSS; > - addressed issues with text related to case-sensitivity of NSS > strings; > - addressed comments and open details on requirements language; > - switched language to talk about "resource" instead of "object"; > - several more editorial fixes and enhancements. Please check whether your concerns have been addressed sufficiently. The authors believe that this draft has no more outstanding issues beyond the textual updates needed to track the progress of the rfc2141bis and rfc3406bis drafts. 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 | +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+