On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 27 March 2015 at 03:42, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > I have no idea what you're on about here. Then why not take a deep breath and read what was written before making another response? My concern was very simple. In the plenary it was announced that DOIs would be added to RFCs. There was then a protest made that 'DOIs are not URNs' and an assertion that the people proposing them didn't understand (what was not understood was less clear). I find this to be a problem for the following reasons: 1) DOIs are very clearly a widely used naming scheme that has demonstrated considerable utility. 2) It is clear that all sensible requirements for making a DOI: urn scheme have been met. 3) It seems that the IETF still has not overcome it's principal obstacle in addressing URI related matters which is the attitude of many of the self appointed experts. 'Repect mah authoritah' does not make for a persuasive argument. Yes, I am one of those people who will on occasion say 'that is wrong'. But I always say why I think something is wrong. What I find rather grating and insulting about the topic of naming is that so many people feel free to say that something is wrong for reasons that they won't bother to explain. Or the closely related 'this is a very difficult issue that only a few people understand and I am not one of them'. If you don't understand the issue and you don't care, then why respond? Looking at the DOI people's Web Site I find their reasons for not applying for a URN scheme is that they don't see the value in prefixing DOIs with urn:doi: when doi: is clearly sufficient. My point is simply that that is a perfectly good argument and we should look for ways that we can bring systems into the URI infrastructure. Obviously there are good reasons not to change names already assigned. The urn: prefix is very much like the x-header in this respect. Those http: URLs have obviously stuck in the XACML spec because there was no value in changing an existing registration. But we don't need to keep demanding the same mistake be made over. The urn: scheme is clearly causing confusion. Lets clear the confusion by registering the scheme the IETF already uses (ISSN) and is about to use (DOI) as top level schemes. >> We should define URI schemes for DOI, UPC and ISSN and make them all top >> level. >> > > That is an entirely different matter, and one that I struggle to care about. So why respond in such a ridiculous fashion? > That is, I don't care whether new registrations use a urn: prefix or not; > "urn:" might make clear that these are non-resolvable, I certainly dislike > the endless urn:ietf:dragons:xml-params:beware:of:the:leopard style of URN > the IETF seems to prefer to mint, but really there's more important things > in life, like whether I should put that pasty in the microwave about now. (I > think I probably should). Perhaps you could explain how little you care in some more detail? > On the other hand, bombastically declaring that "urn:" should be stripped > everywhere without any further thought is, I think, very short-sighted; more > so in the face of obvious examples of problems. Did I write an Internet Draft suggesting that? If so I have forgotten having done so. Quite possible of course. I do write quite a few of them. And I can write a draft pretty quickly now that I have rfctool that lets me compose them in Word. Ah no, I did not. I see what happened now. You read my post and got worried that as so frequently happens in the IETF, a post submitted to the ietf discuss list based on conversations in the bar the night before is likely to become an RFC before the week is out if nobody gets on the case immediately. > Yes; these are references to LDAP attributes, and are of the form > http://www.ietf.org/... rfcXXX.txt#attributeName. I'm in no way trying to > claim this is sensible. Take a look at the identifiers for int32 etc.