Note that the URN in this document has already been through the informal URN review process within IETF and is essentially approved and registered by IANA. The reason for using a different URN (apart from the fact that this definition was already in flight at the time the 3GPP URN was developed) is that the informal URN in this document carries additional semantics as the the usage that use of the 3GPP URN would not convey. regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Dale Worley [mailto:dworley@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 11:48 PM > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > Cc: Atle Monrad; sipping > Subject: Re: Review of > draft-drage-sipping-service-identification-02 > > On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 15:10 +0100, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > > In my working copy I have added this to the string in front > of the urn > > definition itself, rather than in 4.1. and 4.2. > > > > Service-ID = "urn:urn-7:" urn-service-id > > urn-service-id = top-level *("." sub-service-id) > > top-level = let-dig [ *26let-dig ] > > sub-service-id = let-dig [ *let-dig ] > > let-dig = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" > > Maybe I've missed some discussion, but I don't quite > understand the second component proposed for the URNs. In > -02, it is shown as "urn-xxx" (with the initial scheme "urn" > omitted, which you have since fixed). In your message that I > am replying to, it is shown as "urn-7", which seems to be > part of a series "urn-N" for defining URNs for local use. > > But given that 3GPP is interested in this, don't they already > have a URN namespace selected? > > Dale > > > _______________________________________________ Sipping mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP
