[urn] Re: The URN:GLUE proposal

Hi Henry, thanks for sharing your perspective. We're solidly into URN 
territory now, so I've removed the SPICE addresses from my reply.

More below.

On 4/2/26 9:18 AM, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> [serious mis-phrasing in earlier message, please ignore]
> 
> Peter Saint-Andre writes:
> 
>> 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
>> ...
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Apologies for flogging a dead quadruped, but that's at least somewhat
> misleading. In November 2022 we approved, after lengthy argument which
> I lost, 'pwid', which existed solely to give authority to 3rd parties
> to wrap _any_ URIs, which might be URNs, in a PWID, without any
> engagement with the owner of the wrapped URI at all.

As the saying goes: "mistakes were made." Knowing what we know now, I 
suspect we might not approve the `pwid` request if it were submitted at 
this point.

Peter


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