Internet Draft Leslie L. Daigle November 19, 1997 Bunyip Information Systems draft-ietf-urn-nid-req-02.txt Dirk-Willem van Gulik ISIS/CEO, JRC Ispra Renato Iannella DSTC Pty Ltd Patrik Faltstrom Tele2/Swipnet URN Namespace Registration and Standardization Process Mechanisms Status of this Document This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). Abstract The URN WG has defined a syntax for Uniform Resource Names (URNs) [RFC2141], as well as some proposed mechanisms for their resolution and use in Internet applications ([RFC2168, RFC2169]). The whole rests on the concept of individual ''namespaces'' within the URN structure. Apart from proof-of-concept namespaces, the use of existing identifiers in URNs has been discussed (??? biblio id document). This document lays out general definitions of and mechanisms for establishing URN ''namespaces''. Foreword to this Edition This document is a very drafty draft. The intention of this version is to lay out the groundwork for some proposed processes. Detail will be needed. No one has formally approached IANA to set up the registry this is defining. The model here is not unlike media type registrations. Introduction For the purposes of URNs, a "namespace" is a collection of uniquely-assigned identifiers. A URN namespace itself has an identifier in order to . ensure global uniqueness of URNs . (where desired) provide a cue for the structure of the identifier For example, ISBNs and ISSNs are both collections of identifiers used in the traditional publishing world; while there may some number (or numbers) that is both a valid ISBN identifier and ISSN identifier, using different designators for the two collections ensures that no two URNs will be the same for different resources. The development of an identifier structure, and thereby a collection of identifiers, is a process that is inherently dependent on the needs of the identifiers, how they will be assigned, and the uses to which they will be put. All of these issues are beyond the scope of the URN work. This document concerns itself with the mechanical processes of associating an identifier string with a predefined namespace and publication of identifier structures. Of particular concern are: . selection of strings to associate with a namespace . publication of structural elements of the identifiers . identification of support infrastructure for assignment and resolution of URNs for a given namespace . determination of failure of support for a namespace Different levels of disclosure are expected/defined for namespaces. According to the level of discussion and standardization surrounding the disclosure, a URN namespace may be assigned or may request a particular identifier. Note that this document restricts itself to the description of processes for the creation of URN namespaces. If "resolution" of any so-created URN identifiers is desired, a separate process of registration in a global NID directory, such as that provided by the NAPTR [Ref ??] system, is necessary. URN Namespace Categories There are 4 categories of URN namespaces defined here, distinguished by expected level of service and required procedures for registration. The first three are simple namespace types: I. Experimental: These are not registered with IANA. They take the form x- II. Informal: These are registered with IANA (see Section ??), and are assigned a number based on a private OID ("POID" namespaces). III. Standardized: These are processed through a full standards-track RFC review process. The NID may be any valid NID string that does not clash with an existing, registered NID. The fourth is a composite namespace type (i.e., one constructed for the express purpose of later subdivision): IV. Top-level: These are processed through a full standards-track RFC review process. The result is not a NID so much as a top-level NID structure, which will be subdivided by the rules laid out in the top-level NID RFC. These NID strings must not clash with existing, registered NIDs; additionally, the RFC1766 country code strings are reserved for use by countries that desire to so-obtain a top-level NID. Registration Procedures To register a namespace (for type II namespaces, informal), the following information must be provided to the IANA: Declared owner of the namespace Description of: . uniqueness of identifiers assigned by the namespace's naming authority . process of assignment of identfiers in the namespace . rules for determining lexical equivalence between identifiers in the namespace . identification of validation mechanism (to ascertain whether or not a string is in fact a valid URN in the namespace). This can include: . a syntax grammar . an on-line service . an off-line service . conformance with RFC1737 requirements (??? these should be listed out) The namespace is then identified by the declared owner's private OID (POID) and a suffix to distinguish among different namespaces assigned to the same POID: POID.## Standardization Process To establish a standardized URN namespace, the following information must be described and vetted in an IETF standards-track RFC: Declared owner of the namespace Desired NID Description of: . uniqueness of identifiers assigned by the namespace's naming authority . process of assignment of identfiers in the namespace . rules for determining lexical equivalence between identifiers in the namespace . conformance with RFC1737 requirements (??? these should be listed out) . identification of validation mechanism (to ascertain whether or not a string is in fact a valid URN in the namespace) (??? in this case, it is required to be one of whois, finger, mail service) . match of scope, ownership, and/or global applicability. (?? E.g., you can't ask for "social security numbers", but the US may ask for US social security numbers). Examples Security Considerations (??? THere will most assuredly be some!). References [RFC2168] Ron Daniel & Michael Mealling, "Resolution of Uniform Resource Identifiers using the Domain Name System", RFC 2168 June 1997. [RFC2169] Ron Daniel, "A Trivial Convention for using HTTP in URN Resolution", RFC 2169, June 1997. [RFC2141] Ryan Moats, "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997. [RFC1737] Karen R Sollins & Larry Masinter, "Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource Names", RFC1737, December 1994 Authors' Addresses Leslie L. Daigle Bunyip Information Systems Inc 310 Ste. Catherine St. W Suite 300 Montreal, Quebec, CANADA H2X 2A1 voice: +1 514 875-8611 fax: +1 514 875-8134 email: leslie@bunyip.com Dirk-Willem van Gulik ISIS/STA/CEO - TP 270 Joint Research Centre Ispra 21020 Ispra (Va) Italy. voice: +39 332 78 9549 or 5044 fax: +39 332 78 9185 email: Dirk.vanGulik@jrc.it Renato Iannella DSTC Pty Ltd Gehrmann Labs, The Uni of Queensland AUSTRALIA, 4072 voice: +61 7 3365 4310 fax: +61 7 3365 4311 email: renato@dstc.edu.au Patrik Faltstrom Tele2/Swipnet Borgarfjordsgatan 16 P.O. Box 62 S-164 94 Kista SWEDEN voice: +46-5626 4000 fax: +46-5626 4200 email: paf@swip.net