[urn] Re: Request to register urn:glue

Thanks for your useful and constructive review comments, Peter!  Please review the changes in https://github.com/ietf-wg-spice/draft-ietf-spice-glue-id/pull/73, which endeavor to address your and Peter's feedback.  Some additional replies to your comment are inline below, prefixed by "Mike>".

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 11:18 PM
To: Michael Jones <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: Paul Wouters <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [urn] Re: Request to register urn:glue

[dropping IANA for now while we work out the details]

On 3/4/26 2:31 PM, Michael Jones wrote:
> FYI, the registration request is now in the IANA Considerations
> section of the published -07 draft at
> https://www.i/
> etf.org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-&data=05%7C02%7C%7C1362a6db285c45aeecb8
> 08de7b939372%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C639084070928
> 486760%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDA
> wMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sda
> ta=OVUW2hW85eHZRQCuSw55cy90WoCbX%2Fx5jPBqNmUq5CA%3D&reserved=0
> ietf-spice-glue-id-07.html#name-urn-namespace-registration <https://
> http://www.ie/
> tf.org%2Farchive%2Fid%2Fdraft-ietf-spice-glue-id-07.html%23name-urn-&d
> ata=05%7C02%7C%7C1362a6db285c45aeecb808de7b939372%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb4
> 35aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C639084070928513859%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8ey
> JFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFp
> bCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=7JSUl0Fd3%2BW7E%2FfIqxQN3ZklAE
> X29DDbCjnDXlAoTzw%3D&reserved=0
> namespace-registration>.

Overall this request seems unobjectionable in its conception.

However, I have some comments...

It's unclear to me why the I-D talks about "GLUE URIs" when they're really URNs (yes, URNs are URIs, but why not be more specific?).

Mike> The text now always refers to GLUE URNs.

Have the authors conferred with the LEI folks about the fact that now we have two different ways to represent Legal Entity Identifiers in URN form?

To my mind, the IANA Considerations section, along with the document as a whole, contains a number of small confusions about exactly what it is doing. For instance, Section 7.1 states:

    This specification establishes the IANA "GLUE Authority Identifier
    URN" registry creating a URN namespace for Authority Identifiers for
    GLobal Unique Enterprise (GLUE) Identifiers.

As far as I can see, that registry will contain authority identifiers and Section 7.1 does not request creation of a URN namespace - that's what you're doing in Section 7.2.

Mike> See the corrections in the PR.

Similarly:

    Each entry registers the URN for an Authority Identifier within the
    "urn:glue:" namespace.  The organization responsible for the
    Authority Identifier is recorded.

No, it doesn't register a URN, it registers an Authority Identifier, which when preceded by the string "urn:glue:" and succeeded by the External Identifier results in a URN. You could consider the Authority Identifier to be a kind of sub-namespace, but that phrasing too could lead to confusion.

If the authors accept this concern, then they should make appropriate (but relatively small) changes throughout the document, but mainly in Section 7.1. I leave the details as an exercise for the authors.

Mike> Yes, it's now the GLUE Authority Identifier registry.

Also:

    This specification registers the following URN in the IANA "Formal
    URN Namespaces" registry [IANA.URN] established by [RFC8141].

No, it "registers the following URN namespace" (see also above).

Mike> Corrected

Precision is not unimportant in these matters.

Mike> Totally agree!

Peter

                                Thanks again, Peter!
                                -- Mike

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