Re: Registration request for urn:thread:
Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.urn |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 1/29/24 1:06 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote: > Esko Dijk <[email protected]> writes: >>> Section 5.1 of RFC 8141 states: >>> >>> Formal URN namespaces might be appropriate even when some >>> aspects are not fully open. For example, a URN namespace might make >>> use of a fee-based, privately managed, or proprietary registry for >>> assignment of URNs in the URN namespace. However, it might still >>> benefit some Internet users if the associated services have openly >>> published names. >>> >>> In this case, I would say that the letter of RFC 8141 overrides the >>> spirit of the IETF. >> >> Indeed this section was the basis for including a privately managed >> (members-only) and non-public registry in the request. (Non-public, >> because viewing it requires accepting the EULA.) >> >> There is a suggestion there to have at least the names - that are in >> the registry - published. That is something we could add as a >> requirement for any entries in the internal registry, if that helps? >> >> The public version of the registry would be in a separate document >> that can be downloaded from www.threadgroup.org without providing a >> name or accepting a EULA. And each registered URN would provide the >> name and a short description also. Something like the table provided >> by 3GPP >> (https://www.3gpp.org/3gpp-groups/core-network-terminals-ct/ct-wg1/uniform-resource-identifier-uri-list) >> for example. It would then provide a link / doc-reference pointing >> into the non-public specification. > > Given what Peter and Lars have said (and what RFC 8141 says!), I agree > that this is a reasonable solution to all of these concerns. Excellent. I'm on board with this, as well. Peter