[urn] Re: third-party registrations

> For instance, each of the aforementioned organizations could separately register URN namespaces for their identifier systems, and those URNs could then be used in the relevant protocol slots.

Yes, in theory they could.  But as a practical matter, they haven't.  The GLUE spec provides a method to rectify that omission without blocking on something that they may never do.

> We'll have to agree to disagree.

It seems so... ;-)

				Cheers,
				-- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> 
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2026 3:45 PM
To: Michael Jones <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: Brent Zundel <[email protected]>; Pamela Dingle <[email protected]>; Orie Steele <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [urn] third-party registrations

On 4/3/26 8:46 AM, Michael Jones wrote:
> 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

Somehow I doubt that DUNS, GLN, ISO, LEI, PEN, and SWIFT think of their identifier systems as "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.

It seems to me that there are other ways of using identifiers in protocols than by creating a third-party registration and thus (as I see
it) going against the underlying management principles of the URN ecosystem. For instance, each of the aforementioned organizations could separately register URN namespaces for their identifier systems, and those URNs could then be used in the relevant protocol slots.

> 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.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Peter

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