[urn] Re: Registration request for AR URN Namespace

Ship it! :-)

On 2/8/26 8:09 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Hi Dale and Peter,
> 
> Thank you both, I’ve made the updates and @Dale R. Worley 
> <mailto:[email protected]> I used your suggested rephrasing (couldn’t 
> of said it better myself).
> 
> Please see the attached, hopefully this is the last revision.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Quoc
> 
> *From:*Dale R. Worley <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 28 January 2026 11:54
> *To:* Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* Quoc Pham <[email protected]>; [email protected]; 
> [email protected]; Sharon Jonnalagadda <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [urn] Re: Registration request for AR URN Namespace
> 
>> On 1/26/26 9: 55 PM, Quoc@ registry. godaddy wrote: >> Thank you for the clarity, we 
> only ever intent to set our extension to >> be made up if ALPHA, DIGIT, 
> hyphen and dot and now I fully understand >> the issue with US 7
> 
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
> 
> *This Message Is From an External Sender *
> 
> This message came from outside your organization.
> 
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
> 
>> On 1/26/26 9:55 PM, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>>> Thank you for the clarity, we only ever intent to set our extension to 
> 
>>> be made up if ALPHA, DIGIT, hyphen and dot and now I fully understand 
> 
>>> the issue with US 7 bit ASCII. So if I was to include what you have 
> 
>>> listed in your emails, would that be acceptable (I know that you have 
> 
>>> tilde I your list but I guess we can keep that in there for our 
> 
>>> application in case)?
> 
> Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> writes:
> 
>> That sounds good to me. The `unreserved` construct from RFC 3986 is 
> 
>> merely a convenience because it is well known. You can define your own 
> 
>> ABNF without the tilde if desired.
> 
> I agree with Peter here.  And getting a workable definition for
> 
> <extension> seems to be the only issue regarding the syntax section of
> 
> the registration.
> 
> There does seem to be a wording problem with the interoperability
> 
> section:
> 
>    The "gdr" namespace ensures that there is no clash with any of the 
> published
> 
>    EPP RFCs extenions which follow the syntax
> 
>    "urn:gdr:params:xml:ns:<extension>".
> 
> I would phrase it something like:
> 
>    Using the "gdr" namespace to name the GoDaddy EPP extensions ensures
> 
>    that they do not clash with any EPP extensions defined by other
> 
>    organizations.
> 
> Dale
> 

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