[urn] Re: Registration request for AR URN Namespace

Deqr Quoc, Sharon,

Apologies, that our review arrives late. The concerns we’ve had have already been addressed by Peter’s and Dale’s comments so that there only remains one minor point.

The registration says that further documentation can be found at https://godaddyregistry.github.io/. Even if github currently is very much alive an thriving, they could go out of business (or change their business model) very abruptly which might force you to move the documentation to another location and update the registration document. A suggestion would be to to have _in the registration document_ a documentation address over which GoDaddy has full control (e.g. https://urn.registry.godaddy). That address can then redirect to your github repo.

But as Dale said, that shouldn’t be gating the registration.

Best,

Stephanie and Lars

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:[email protected]] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 22. Januar 2026 15:55
An: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Betreff: [urn] Re: Registration request for AR URN Namespace

Hi Quoc & Sharon,

The text about assignment looks good to me. I'm now in favor of approving this registration, but let's see if other members of the expert review team have additional comments.

Thanks for working with us on this!

Peter

On 1/22/26 12:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> Ah yes, sorry about that, full xmlns should have been written
> xmlns="urn:gdr:params:xml:ns:variant-1.0
> 
> Regarding the other point, what I mean with best effort is that when 
> we develop our own extensions, we will check the IANA repository and 
> the published EPPs the ensure that we avoid naming any new extensions 
> to be the same.
> 
> E.g. RFC3915 is xmlns="urn:itef:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0. If for some 
> reason we have our own "RGP" extension where it’s an abbreviation for 
> something completely different and plan to use
> xmlns="urn:gdr:params:xml:ns:rgp-1.0 … we will look to change that to 
> something else (specifically rgp-1.0).
> 
> Thank you for your point on uniqueness, I wanted to express that we 
> will take care in what extensions we create so they are "similar" to 
> others that already exist and create confusion. OK I will remove that text.
> 
> Here it is attached and hopefully it makes sense, also I do appreciate 
> the "wordiness", it’s been an educational process for both Sharon and I.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Quoc
> 
> *From:*Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Thursday, 22 January 2026 01:02
> *To:* Quoc Pham <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* [email protected]; Sharon Jonnalagadda <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [urn] Re: Registration request for AR URN Namespace
> 
> On 1/20/26 10: 00 PM, Quoc@ registry. godaddy wrote: > Hi Peter, > >
> Question: Is 32 characters enough to represent these variants > 
> (presumably they > > will be A-labels, not U-labels)? > > Answer:
> variant isn’t a place
> 
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
> 
> *This Message Is From an External Sender *
> 
> This message came from outside your organization.
> 
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
> 
> On 1/20/26 10:00 PM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>wrote:
> 
>> Hi Peter,
> 
>> 
> 
>> Question: Is 32 characters enough to represent these variants
> 
>> (presumably they
> 
>> 
> 
>> will be A-labels, not U-labels)?
> 
>> 
> 
>> Answer: variant isn’t a place holder of a label, it’s the extension 
>> name
> 
>> itself, for instance the variant extension names space would be
> 
>> xmlns="urn:ar:params:xml:ns:variant-1.0"
> 
> Thanks for clarifying that!
> 
> (Presumably changing 'ar' to 'gdr' there.)
> 
>> Statement: Thankfully, uniqueness applies to the full URN, so if you
> 
>> guarantee uniqueness within the 'gdr' namespace then we don't need to
> 
>> worry about the uniqueness of extension strings across other namespaces.
> 
>> 
> 
>> Response: Do you want me to remove the statement about uniqueness?
> 
> It seems to me that you might be able to remove the statement about 
> the
> 
> global uniqueness of specific portions of 'gdr' URNs (e.g., the
> 
> <variant> and <kvlist> extensions), unless this is important to you 
> and
> 
> to the ecosystem of registrars.
> 
> What we care about most is the GodDaddy Registrar's commitment to
> 
> ensuring the uniqueness of URNs that you create. My impression is that
> 
> you won't be creating hundreds or thousands of URNs. Instead, you're
> 
> going to create a pretty limited number of URNs (maybe a few dozen?)
> 
> which represent "extensions" that are specific to your registry system.
> 
> In that case, guaranteeing uniqueness should be fairly straightforward.
> 
> To be clear, the phrase "best effort" in your current text caused
> 
> concern for me, because I think GoDaddy Registrar can do better than
> 
> that for a few dozen extensions. If the phrase "best effort" applies 
> to
> 
> the uniqueness of extension names (not full URNs) across the universe 
> of
> 
> registrars, then that is perhaps nice to have for GodDaddy and the
> 
> registrar industry, but from a URN perspective that doesn't really
> 
> matter to us. :-)
> 
> Does this make sense? Sorry to have replied in such a wordy fashion.
> 
> Peter
> 

_______________________________________________
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]