Phillip Hallam-Baker <ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I remain of the view that the URN/URL distinction is unhelpful because it is
> meaningless. There are no sharp boundaries between categories of identifier
> as the distinction supposes.
> Before making this argument in more detail, I will make a plea for respect. I
> find that the biggest obstacle to getting clarity on naming is that when
> faced with an analysis that contradicts deeply held beliefs, the usual
> response is to tell people to 'do some research' or 'understand the issues'.
> The URN/URI distinction does not in fact represent an essential distinction
> between types identifiers as claimed. It describes a difference in source of
> authority at best, not an essential property.
I agree with you.
I think that we might have found new ways in which they are meaningfully
distinct had to a uquitious way to resolve the more abstract URNs.
That didn't happen, and I don't imagine that it is coming in the way envisioned.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
