[urn] Re: The URN:GLUE proposal

Focusing on only one point for now...

On 4/1/26 8:22 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:

> 2. The politics of using someone else's identifier
> 
> As Peter says
>> This sidesteps the question of whether the originating authority wishes
>> its identifiers to be incorporated. It seems to me that as a matter of
>> professional courtesy and to avoid any misunderstandings the IETF should
>> not incorporate identifier systems defined by other standards
>> development organizations without consultation and prior agreement.
>> Anything less could be perceived as rather aggressive.
> 
> Someone noted that RFC 8141 anticipates that other identifier systems
> will be incorporated into URN namespaces.  But I quote section 6.3
> 
>      6.3.  Registration Policy and Process: Fast Track for Standards
>            Development Organizations, Scientific Societies, and Similar
>            Bodies
> 
>     The IETF recognizes that situations will arise in which URN
>     namespaces will be created to either embed existing and established
>     standards, particularly identifier standards, or reflect knowledge,
>     terminology, or methods of organizing information that lie well
>     outside the IETF's scope or the likely subject matter knowledge of
>     its Designated Experts.  In situations in which the registration
>     request originates from, or is authorized by, a recognized standards
>     development organization, scientific society, or their designees, a
>     somewhat different procedure is available at the option of that body:
> 
> The salient point is that the text assumes (without really analyzing)
> that for such a namespace, the registrant will be the organization that
> defines the incorporated identifier.
> 
> So I take it that "the IETF" has not really examined this issue.

Until draft-ietf-spice-glue came along, in the entire history of URN 
namespace registrations going back 25 years or more (the earliest one I 
see is `pin` in RFC 3043, not including `ietf` in RFC 2648), I believe 
that "we" - the folks involved with the URN WG and subsequently the URN 
namespaces expert review team set up by RFC 8141 - never imagined such a 
"creative" registration as GLUE. We always assumed that other SDOs would 
make requests of us to register their own namespaces so as to 
incorporate their own identifier systems, not that what you are calling 
third-party organizations (or WGs) would register namespaces to 
incorporate identifier systems defined elsewhere.

Under the old registration regime established by RFC 3406 and obsoleted 
by RFC 8141 (which simplified the registration process, since it had 
been cumbersome and confusing for other SDOs), the GLUE document would 
have needed to pass IETF Consensus in order to register its URN 
namespace. This might or might not have resulted in a superior outcome 
(depending on your point of view), but it might have led to a wider 
discussion in IETF Last Call (depending on whether you think IETF Last 
Call is as effective as it should be in identifying issues like this).

> Thus my current position is that we, the URN NID committee, should
> consider that registrations by third-party organizations are suspect
> *unless* a WG has discussed the matter and reached consensus that such
> non-coordinated incorporations are OK.

If I understand your statement correctly, I am not sure this is quite 
the correct conclusion to draw from this kerfuffle, but that's not a 
matter for the SPICE WG and I will start a separate thread about it on 
the [email protected] discussion list. Folks active in the SPICE WG and 
elsewhere who are interested in policies for registration of URN 
namespaces can join the [email protected] list to participate if desired.

Peter

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