[urn] Re: Application: URN Namespace Identifier: nfi

Request submitted to IANA.

On 8/1/25 9:08 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Great. Let's give the other team members a chance to review. If we don't 
> hear from them by the end of next week, we'll move forward with the 
> registration.
> 
> On 8/1/25 2:25 AM, Peter Waher wrote:
>> Hello Peter
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback, and the edits. I accepted and transferred 
>> them all into the original documents. I also found an additional 
>> reference that I removed, replacing it with a text reference, and 
>> changed the date to today's date. I generated a new PDF to match the 
>> edits as well.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Peter Waher
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Från:* Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>
>> *Skickat:* Torsdag, 31 juli 2025 18:31
>> *Till:* Peter Waher <[email protected]>; Dale R. Worley 
>> <[email protected]>
>> *Kopia:* [email protected] <[email protected]>
>> *Ämne:* Re: [urn] Re: Application: URN Namespace Identifier: nfi
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Here is more feedback. You can also find my suggestions here:
>>
>> https://github.com/stpeter/urn-namespaces/pull/1 <https://github.com/ 
>> stpeter/urn-namespaces/pull/1>
>>
>> The version number should be "1". (It is the version of the namespace
>> itself, not of the document or template registering this version.)
>>
>> I don't think we need the citations (e.g. to various RFCs) because we
>> don't usually include those in the completed templates published here:
>>
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml 
>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 7/31/25 6:10 AM, Peter Waher wrote:
>>  > Hello Dale
>>  >
>>  > Thanks for the feedback. I've addressed all the issues as you
>>  > recommended. Please find the revised application attached (version 3).
>>  >
>>  > Best regards,
>>  > Peter Waher
>>  >
>>  > 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  > *Från:* Dale R. Worley <[email protected]>
>>  > *Skickat:* Torsdag, 31 juli 2025 03:27
>>  > *Till:* Peter Waher <[email protected]>
>>  > *Kopia:* [email protected] <[email protected]>
>>  > *Ämne:* Re: [urn] Application: URN Namespace Identifier: nfi
>>  >
>>  > Reviewing this application:
>>  >
>>  >      Namespace Identifier (formal)
>>  >
>>  >         nfi
>>  >
>>  >      Version
>>  >
>>  >         2
>>  >
>>  > I am noting here that I am reviewing the "nfi" version.
>>  >
>>  >         Contact Person:
>>  >
>>  >            Peter Waher
>>  >            email: [email protected]
>>  >            email: [email protected]
>>  >            xmpp: [email protected]
>>  >
>>  > It's desirable for the contact address to be given as a "role e-mail
>>  > address" rather than an individual's address.
>>  >
>>  >      Syntax
>>  >
>>  >         Using the format defined in RFC 3986 [5], and some of its base
>>  >         classes, a formal definition of the syntax used for urn URIs
>>  >         used together with the nfi Namespace Identifier is as follows:
>>  >
>>  >               nfi-uri      = "urn:nfi:" category ":" subcat : version
>>  >               category     = name
>>  >               subcat       = 1*( ":" name )
>>  >               name         = 1*( unreserved / pct-encoded )
>>  >               version      = 1*DIGIT "." 1*DIGIT
>>  >
>>  > I note that "urn:nfi:iot:ctr:1.0" and "urn:nfi:iot:ctr:1.0:1.0" both
>>  > conform to this syntax, though you probably don't want allocate the
>>  > second one.  In practice, I think you want to restrict "name" to start
>>  > with an ALPHA so that any "name" part is imediately distingushable
>>  > from the "version" part by the human reader.  It also allows the
>>  > possiblity of the future use of omitting the version part.
>>  >
>>  >               name         = ALPHA *( unreserved / pct-encoded )
>>  >
>>  >      Resolution
>>  >
>>  >         There is no resolution mechanism anticipated for use with the
>>  >         nfi namespace identifier.
>>  >
>>  >      Documentation
>>  >
>>  >         The Neuro-Foundation interfaces are documented publicly in 
>> [1].
>>  >
>>  > The "Resolution" section is correct within the meaning of RFC 8141,
>>  > but for practical purposes, I would recommend pointing people to the
>>  > mapping between the URNs and the definition of the interfaces they
>>  > identify as a "resolution" process:
>>  >
>>  >      Resolution
>>  >
>>  >         There is no resolution mechanism anticipated for use with the
>>  >         nfi namespace identifier.  However, each URN identifies an
>>  >         interface as described by the Documentation.
>>  >
>>  > --
>>  >
>>  >         [5] T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding and L. Masinter, "Uniform 
>> Resource
>>  >             Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax," 01 2005. [Online].
>>  >             Available: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986 
>> <https:// tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986> <https://
>>  > tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986>.
>>  >             [Accessed 03 07 2015].
>>  >
>>  > If you provide a reference for RFC 3986, I would recommend adding a
>>  > reference to RFC 8141, even though strictly speaking, the registration
>>  > doesn't reference it:
>>  >
>>  >        [6] "Uniform Resource Names (URNs)," [Online].
>>  >            Available: http://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc8141.html <http:// 
>> xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc8141.html> <http://
>>  > xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc8141.html>.
>>  >
>>  > Dale
>>  >
>>  > _______________________________________________
>>  > urn mailing list -- [email protected]
>>  > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>
> 

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