[urn] Re: FW: Request to IANA for formal URN assignment (Bank VTB)

Ярыгин Анатолий Александрович <[email protected]> writes:
> Please,
> review the request in attachments.

> [2:application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Show Save:IANA URN Registration Request For BANK VTB v1.docx (14kB)]

In my opinion, three items should be addressed:

1. The contact e-mail is given as <[email protected]>, which appears to
be Anatoliy Yarygin's personal e-mail.  The usefulness of this e-mail
address seems to depend on Yarygin's continued employment at VTB.
Generally, the contact for a URN namespace should be a "role e-mail
address" that the organization is responsible for routing to a suitable
person (who may change from time to time).  So I recommend that the
registration be revised with a suitable role e-mail address (and VTB
should ensure that it maintains such a role e-mail address).

2. The syntax is specified as "The syntax of NSS part of requested URN
is under development and it is not a subject for disclosure at the
moment."  It would be better to say "The NSS part of requested URN must
conform to the syntax 'NSS' of RFC 8141."  Of course, the NSS is always
constrained to conform to that syntax, but the registration template
should state some syntax constraint explicitly.  If VTB later determines
a more detailed NSS specification, it can revise the namespace
registration with the new specification.  So I recommend making this
change to the wording of the template (which is not a change to the
practice).

3. Of the 90 or so formal URN namespace registrations, it does not
appear that any others are registered by a private business.  Almost all
are registered by standards or trade organizations.  RFC 8141 section
5.1 suggests that this is intentional:

   The intent
   is that, while the community of those who might actively use the URNs
   assigned within that URN namespace might be small, the potential use
   of names within that URN namespace is open to any user on the
   Internet.  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.

On the other hand, there does not appear to be any specific rule against
a registration that is initially intended to be used almost solely
within a private business.  And given that there are fewer than 90
registrations to date, there seems to be no shortage of namespace
identifiers.  So I recommend that we do not stop this registration due
to its narrow (initial) intended usage.

Dale

_______________________________________________
urn mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]