[urn] Re: third-party registrations

Peter, you wrote "3. Personally I see no rationale for third-party registrations. If someone can provide a strong argument for them, then let's discuss."

GLUE is a perfect example of why third-party registrations are necessary.  It glues (pun intended) together disparate and bespoke identifier spaces that are not URIs by creating URIs for them.  It creates URI representations for these identifiers when the external authority that defined them didn't do so.  This meets a need to facilitate trade and commerce, by allowing these identifiers to be used in protocols.

For example, if ISO/IEC 6523 had created URI forms for their identifiers, GLUE wouldn't be needed to do so.  But because they didn't, a third-party registration is appropriate and necessary.

				-- Mike

P.S.  Yes, we're proceeding to update the GLUE spec to use glue: rather than urn:glue:, per your suggestions.  But the general point about the appropriateness of and need for third party registrations remains.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> 
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 4:14 PM
To: Dale R. Worley <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: [urn] third-party registrations

On 4/2/26 6:29 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

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

>> 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...

Here are my further thoughts.

1. Dale, I'd like to understand your reasoning behind saying that a WG could reach consensus that non-coordinated incorporation is OK. Are you suggesting that a future URN WG could make a policy decision along the lines of what you propose and update RFC 8141 accordingly? Or are you suggesting that some other kind of working group (such as the SPICE WG) could make such a decision as long as it receives IETF consensus?

2. This is all hypothetical because there are no plans for a new URN WG or its equivalent, but if we ever "discuss the matter" then I think we would need to put serious guardrails in place to ensure that the power to complete third-party registrations could not be abused. It might be difficult to craft such rules.

3. Personally I see no rationale for third-party registrations. If someone can provide a strong argument for them, then let's discuss.

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]