Re: GVAT registration request
"Lars G. Svensson" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.urn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
+1 Best, Lars -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: urn [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Peter Saint-Andre Gesendet: Freitag, 21. April 2023 17:38 An: Miksa, Tomasz <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Betreff: Re: [urn] GVAT registration request This looks good. I approve. Peter On 4/21/23 6:12 AM, Miksa, Tomasz wrote: > Thanks again for the careful review of our specifications. You helped us improve it. > > I enclose hopefully the final revision. I made the following changes: > 1. Fixed the notation for the object as suggested by Dale. It is now: > 1*(%x41–5A / %x61–7A / %x30–39 / %x2D). I know that it allows a > situation in which the object consists of "-" only, which may not be > ideal, but I believe it is better to keep the formulation simple, > rather than come up with something more complex like 1*(%x41–5A / > %x61–7A / %x30–39) (%x41–5A / %x61–7A / %x30–39 / %x2D) > > 2. Rephrased the Resolution section as suggested by @Juha. It captures very well the gist of what we are up to. > > Apart from this, no other changes were made. > > Cheers > Tomasz > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lars G. Svensson <[email protected]> > Sent: piątek, 21 kwietnia 2023 11:26 > To: Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>; Dale R. Worley > <[email protected]>; Miksa, Tomasz <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [urn] GVAT registration request > > Having read the specification, I have no comments and agree with the registration of GVAT as a urn namespace. > > Best, > > Lars > > Am 18.04.2023 um 22:38 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre: >> On 4/18/23 12:43 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote: >>> I have only one remaining comment. There appears to be a typo: >>> >>> "Miksa, Tomasz" <[email protected]> writes: >>> ... >>>> Ad. object >>>> Yes, we are aware of the lack of German characters. We really >>>> intend to ensure no semantics in the identifiers. One change we did >>>> was to introduce the "-", to have better overlap with UUID and >>>> DOIs, in case any of them is used in the future. Now it is: >>>> 1*(%x41–5A / %x61–7A / %x30–39 ) %x2D >>> ... >>>> object = 1*(%x41–5A / %x61–7A / %x30–39 ) >>>> %x2D >>> ... >>> >>> As written, this means one or more alphanumeric characters, then >>> always followed by "-". I assume that the intent is >>> >>> object = 1*(%x41–5A / %x61–7A / %x30–39 / >>> %x2D >>> ) >>> >>> that is, alphanumerics arbitrarily mixed with "-". >> >> Good catch, and agreed. >> >> Peter >> >> _______________________________________________ >> urn mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn _______________________________________________ urn mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn _______________________________________________ urn mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn