Re: corporate URN namespaces
"Lars G. Svensson" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.urn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Dear Peter, Regarding commercial entities registering URNs, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't approve those. The use of unregistered URNs (or URNs with unregistered namespaces) definitely must be discouraged, although I of course see that it's an uphill battle... My €0,02. Best, Lars -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: urn [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von Peter Saint-Andre Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Januar 2024 20:36 An: [email protected] Betreff: [urn] corporate URN namespaces Hi all, You might be aware that various corporations have created their own URN namespace IDs without registering them. As examples: URLs for LinkedIn posts are of the form https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:somelongnumberhere/ (presumably they use the standalone URNs somewhere in their system). Similarly, Amazon uses URLs containing urn:rtn:msg:somethingsomething in emails to you about product returns; here is a truncated example: https://www.amazon.com/gp/f.html?C=2WFAH2342Q3N1&K=3SEUCCRFF9WAS&M=urn:rtn:m sg:202401201905199531b363910d4325b9b8a9dd8910p0na And so on. So far, I have tried without success to contact people I know at these companies about the namespaces they are using. (Naturally, it is not our job to chase these people down, but the current situation seems less than optimal.) Under RFC 2141 / RFC 3406 we actively discouraged registration of URN namespace IDs by commercial entities, but we dropped "policy" that in RFC 8141. As long as a corporation provided documentation of their URN structure and followed the registration rules in RFC 8141 (etc.), it seems to me that we'd likely approve such registrations. I'm curious how community participants and expert review team members see the matter. Peter _______________________________________________ urn mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn