Re: corporate URN namespaces

On 1/31/24 12:03 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 1/29/24 1:14 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>> Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> writes:
>>> I'm curious how community participants and expert review team members
>>> see the matter.
>>
>> Hmmmm...  I'm not so concerned by circumscribed organizations creating
>> their own pseudo-URNs for their internal usage.  I am concerned, though,
>> about a namespace that's meant to be used to interoperate between
>> systems operated by many organizations, but the details of the namespace
>> are not made public.  This happens particularly when a trade group
>> standardizes a bundle of technology but keeps the details secret.
>> "*This* part of the Internet is private to members of the club!"  Even
>> in the situation of the Thread Group, where it seems anybody can obtain
>> the details, but nobody is allowed to discuss them in public.
> 
> To your first point about circumscribed organizations, when I worked at 
> Cisco 10+ years ago, engineers on a project I was advising wanted to 
> create a namespace "urn:cisco". That would have been convenient for 
> them, but no one proposed reasonable governance for the namespace (e.g., 
> Cisco has multiple CTO offices for different product lines, so it 
> wouldn't have been easy to centralize issuance of URNs, although perhaps 
> folks could have used "sub-namespaces"). In the end I believe the 
> project decided to use HTTP URIs as XML namespace names, not URNs.
> 
> But yes, that kind of thing would have been tucked away in a single 
> company's product. I suppose the same is true of what LinkedIn and 
> Amazon are doing in the examples I mentioned. We need to ask ourselves 
> whether we really care about such things. Perhaps I'm making a mountain 
> out of a molehill...

Thanks to a message sent to IANA on a related topic, I just now found 
documentation for the urn:li namespace:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/linkedin/shared/api-guide/concepts/urns?context=linkedin%2Fcontext

This usage is especially problematic because it violates Section 5.1 of 
RFC 8141, which states the following constraint on NIDs:

    3.  It MUST be more than two characters long, and it MUST NOT start
        with ALPHA ALPHA "-", i.e., any string consisting of two letters
        followed by one hyphen; such strings are reserved for potential
        use as NIDs based on ISO alpha-2 country codes [ISO.3166-1] for
        eventual national registrations of URN namespaces (however, the
        definition and scoping of rules for allocation of responsibility
        for such country-code-based URN namespaces are beyond the scope
        of this document).  As a consequence, it MUST NOT start with the
        string "xn--" or any other string consisting of two letters
        followed by two hyphens; such strings are reserved for potential
        representation of DNS A-labels and similar strings in the future
        [RFC5890].

(Note that "li" is the country code for Liechtenstein.)

I'm going to try again with some of our contacts at Microsoft.

Peter

_______________________________________________
urn mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn