[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 RFC 4151

Internet Draft                                              Tim Kindberg
Document: draft-kindberg-tag-uri-01.txt      Hewlett-Packard Corporation
Expires: March 1, 2002                                      Sandro Hawke
                                               World Wide Web Consortium
                                                          September 2001

                 The 'tag' URI scheme and URN namespace


   This  document  is  an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   This document replaces draft-kindberg-tag-uri-00.txt.

   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-

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at

   This Internet-draft will expire on March 1, 2002.

   Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All
   Rights Reserved.

   DISCLAIMER. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not
   necessarily state or reflect those of the World Wide Web Consortium,
   and may not be  used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
   This proposal  has not undergone technical review within the
   Consortium and must not be construed as a Consortium recommendation.


   This document describes the 'tag' Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
   scheme and, from it, the 'tag' Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace,
   for identifiers that are unique across space and time. Identifiers

Kindberg          Informational - Expires March 1, 2002         [Page 1]

Internet-Draft                     Tags                   September 2001

   belonging to this scheme are distinct from most other URIs in that
   they are intended for uses that are independent of any particular
   method for resource location or name resolution. A 'tag' URI may be
   used purely as an identifier that distinguishes one entity from
   another. It may also be presented to services for resolution into a
   web resource or into one or more further URIs, but no particular
   resolution scheme is implied or preferred by a 'tag' URI itself.
   Unlike UUIDs or GUIDs such as 'uuid' URIs and 'urn:oid' URIs, which
   also have some of the above properties, 'tag' URIs are designed to be
   tractable to humans. Furthermore, they have many of the desirable
   properties that 'http' URLs have when used as identifiers, but none
   of the drawbacks.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.


   A 'tag' identifier is a type of Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
   [RFC2396] designed to meet the following requirements:

   1) Identifiers are unique across space and time and come from a
      practically inexhaustible supply;
   2) identifiers are convenient for humans to mint (create), read, type
   3) zero registration cost, at least to holders of domain names or
      email addresses; and negligible cost to mint new identifiers;
   4) independence of any particular resource-location or identifier-
      resolution scheme.

   For example, the above requirements may apply in the case of a user
   who wants to place identifiers on their documents:

   A) They want to be sure that the identifier is unique. Global
      uniqueness is valuable because it guarantees that one identifier
      cannot conflict with another, however identifiers become shared.
   B) It is useful for the identifier to be tractable to humans: they
      should be able to mint new identifiers conveniently, and to type
      them into emails and forms.
   C) They do not want to have to communicate with anyone else in order
      to mint identifiers for their documents.
   D) As a good net citizen, the user does not want to use an identifier
      that might be assumed by software to imply the existence of a
      corresponding resource in a default binding scheme -D so that an

Kindberg          Informational - Expires March 1, 2002         [Page 2]

Internet-Draft                     Tags                   September 2001

      attempt to retrieve that resource is likely but doomed to failure.
      Of course, this leaves them free to exploit the identifier in
      particular applications and services, where the context is clear.

   Existing identification schemes satisfy some but not all of the
   general requirements 1-4. For example:

   UUIDs [UUID, ISO11578] are hard for humans to read.

   OIDs [OID, RFC3061] and Digital Object Identifiers [DOI] require
   naming authorities to register themselves, even if they already hold
   a domain name registration.

   URLs (in particular, 'http' URLs) are sometimes used as ersatz
   identifiers that satisfy most of our requirements. Many users and
   organisations have already registered a domain name, and the use of
   the domain name to mint identifiers comes at no additional cost. But
   there are drawbacks to URLs- as-identifiers:

   1) Software might try to dereference a URL-as-identifier, even though
      there is no resource at the 'location'.
   2) The new holder of a domain name can't be sure that they are
      minting new names. If Smith registers champignon.net and then
      Jones registers it, how can Jones know, in general, whether Smith
      has already used http://champignon.net/99?


   Section 2 gives a specification for tags: their syntax and the rules
   governing their creation and comparison. Section 3 revisits the
   requirements outlined above and shows that the tag specification
   meets them. Section 4 covers security considerations. Section 5
   explains how tags are embedded in the URN namespace, by adopting
   'tag' as a URN namespace identifier. Appendix A contains a URN
   namespace registration request for 'tag'.


   Examples of tag URIs (also known as 'tags') are:


Kindberg          Informational - Expires March 1, 2002         [Page 3]

Internet-Draft                     Tags                   September 2001

   Each tag consists of a 'tag authority' followed, optionally, by a
   specific identifier. The tag authority consists of an 'authority
   name' -- a fully qualified domain name or an email address containing
   a fully qualified domain name -- followed by a date. The tag
   authority is globally unique because domain names and email addresses
   are assigned to at most one entity at a time. That entity can be sure
   of minting unique identifiers.

   The date specifies, according to the Gregorian calendar, any
   particular day on which the authority name was assigned to the
   minting entity at midnight 00:00 UTC. The date is specified using one
   of the 'YYYY', 'YYYY-MM' and 'YYYY-MM-DD' formats allowed by the ISO
   8601 standard [DATETIME, ISO8601]. The tag specification permits no
   other formats.

   The month and day default to '01' so that, for example, '2001-07' is
   to be taken as 2001-07-01 and '2000' is to be taken as 2000-01-01.
   All dates, including those such as '2000' and '2001-07', specify a
   moment (00:00) of a single day; they are not to be taken as periods
   of a day or more, such as 'the whole of 2000' or 'the whole of July

   In the interests of tags being single-valued, a day value of 01 MUST
   be omitted; a month value of 01 MUST be omitted unless it is followed
   by a day value other than 01. For example, the date fields '2003-01'
   and '2001-07-01' are not allowed but '2001-01-07' is allowed.

   A tag authority mints specific identifiers that are unique within its
   context, in accordance with any internal scheme that uses only URI
   characters. Some tag authorities (e.g. corporations, mailing lists)
   consist of many people, in which case group decision-making and
   record-keeping procedures are required to achieve uniqueness.

   Entities that were assigned an authority name on a given date MAY
   mint tags rooted at that date-qualified name. An entity MUST NOT mint
   tags under an authority name that was assigned to a different entity
   on the given date, and it MUST NOT mint tags under a future date.

   An entity that acquires an authority name immediately after a period
   during which the name was unassigned MAY mint tags as if the entity
   was assigned the name during the unassigned period. This practice has
   considerable potential for error and MUST NOT be used unless the
   entity has substantial evidence that the name was unassigned during
   that period.  The authors are currently unaware of any mechanism that
   would count as evidence, other than daily polling of the 'whois'

Kindberg          Informational - Expires March 1, 2002         [Page 4]

Internet-Draft                     Tags                   September 2001

   For example, Hewlett-Packard holds the domain registration for hp.com
   and may mint any tags rooted at that name with a current or past date
   when it held the registration. It must not mint tags such as
   tag:champignon.net,2001 under domain names not registered to it. It
   must not mint tags dated in the future, such as tag:hp.com,2999. If
   it obtains assignment of extremelyunlikelytobeassigned.org on
   2001-05-01, then it must not mint tags under
   extremelyunlikelytobeassigned.org,2001 unless it has evidence proving
   that that name was continuously unassigned between 2001-01-01 and

   The general syntax of a 'tag' URI, in BNF, is:

         tagURI         ::= "tag:" tagAuthority [":" specific]

         tagAuthority  ::= authorityName "," date
         authorityName ::= DNSname | emailAddress
         date          ::= 4*dig ["-" 2*dig ["-" 2*dig ]] ; [ISO8601]
         DNSname       ::= DNScomp | DNSname "." DNScomp  ; [RFC 1035]
         DNScomp       ::= lowAlphaNum [*(lowAlphaNum |"-") lowAlphaNum]
         emailAddress  ::= 1*(lowAlphaNum |"-"|"."|"_") "@" DNSname
         lowAlphaNum   ::= dig | "a"|"b"| ... "y"|"z"  ; lwr case alphas
         specific      ::= 1*(URIchars)  ; [RFC 2396]
         dig           ::= "0"|"1"|"2"|"3"|"4"|"5"|"6"|"7"|"8"|"9"

   The component 'tagAuthority' is the name space part of the URI. In
   the interests of tags being single-valued, this MUST be expressed in
   lower case; the domain name in 'authorityName' (whether an email
   address or a simple domain name) MUST be fully qualified.

   Authority names could, in principle, belong to any syntactically
   distinct namespaces whose names are assigned to a unique entity at a
   time. Those include, for example, certain IP addresses, certain MAC
   addresses, and telephone numbers. However, to simplify the tag
   scheme, we restrict authority names to be domain names and email
   addresses. Future standards efforts may allow use of other authority
   names following syntax that is disjoint from this syntax. To allow
   for such developments, software that processes tags MUST NOT reject
   them on the grounds that they are outside the syntax defined above.

   The component 'specific' is the name-space-specific part of the URI:
   it is any string of valid URI characters [RFC2396] chosen by the
   minter of the URI. Specific identifiers MUST be single-valued: that
   is, all syntactically distinct 'specific' strings must correspond to
   distinct identifiers. It is RECOMMENDED that specific identifiers
   should be human-friendly.

Kindberg          Informational - Expires March 1, 2002         [Page 5]

Internet-Draft                     Tags                   September 2001


   The tag syntax rules uniquely determine tag authority identifiers for
   any particular authority and date. Furthermore, specific identifiers
   are mandated to be single-valued.

   Therefore, two tag URIs are equal if and only if they are identical
   as character strings.


   Requirement 2 of Section 1 -- convenience for humans -- is met by the
   URL-like syntax for tag authorities. However, the onus is on
   individual naming authorities to use human-friendly specific

   Requirement 3 -- negligible costs -- follows from use of domain names
   and email addresses. Those identifiers are already held by many
   individuals and organisations and are cheap to obtain. Specific
   identifiers may be minted without communication with any other

   Requirement 4 -- independence of resolution schemes -- is asserted by
   definition. However, this state of affairs is subject to actual usage

   Requirement 1 specifies uniqueness over space and time. Tag URIs meet
   that requirement by using uniquely assigned authority names and by
   handling transfers of their assignment, e.g. the transfer of a domain
   name's registration from one entity to another. The date is used to
   guarantee uniqueness of 'tagAuthority' across assignments of the
   authority name.

   For example, suppose that on November 2, 2001, the champignon.net
   domain registration becomes assigned to a new entity. That entity
   must qualify the domain name with a date on which it is or was
   assigned to it, to ensure that its tag authority is and will remain
   unique. In particular, it must take care not to use defaults in such
   a way as to specify an earlier date. For example, the new assignee of
   champignon.net may use 2001-11-02, 2001-12 or 2002 (assuming it
   retains the assignment) but not 2001 or 2001-11.


   Minting a tag, by itself, is an operation internal to the minting
   entity with no external consequences. The consequences of using an

Kindberg          Informational - Expires March 1, 2002         [Page 6]

Internet-Draft                     Tags                   September 2001

   improperly minted tag (due to malice or error) in an application
   depends on the application, and must be considered in the design of
   any application that uses tags.


   The tag namespace lends itself to embedding in the URN namespace
   [RFC2141] by adopting 'tag' as a URN namespace identifier, to form a
   set of tag-based URIs that inherit the URN property of denoting one
   resource persistently in any given naming context.

   The syntax for tag URNs is thus:

         "urn:tag:" tagAuthority [":" specific]

   with syntactic components as defined in Section 2. For example,
   urn:tag:timothy@hpl.hp.com,2001:fred is a tag URN. Any binding of
   that URI must be guaranteed to be persistent.

   Appendix A contains a completed URN namespace identifier registration
   template, requesting assignment of 'tag'.


   Further information about the tag URI scheme -- motivation, genesis
   and discussion -- can be obtained from http://www.taguri.org.


   Namespace ID:


   Registration Information:

      Version 1 Date: 1 September 2001

   Declared registrant of the namespace:

      Name:          Tim Kindberg
      E-mail:        timothy@hpl.hp.com
      Affiliation:   Hewlett-Packard Company
      Address:       1501 Page Mill Rd
                     Palo Alto, Ca 94304, USA

Kindberg          Informational - Expires March 1, 2002         [Page 7]

Internet-Draft                     Tags                   September 2001

   Declared registrant of the namespace:

      Name:          Sandro Hawke
      E-mail:        sandro@w3.org
      Affiliation:   World Wide Web Consortium
      Address:       200 Technology Square
                     Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

   Declaration of structure:

      The identifier structure is as follows:

      URN:tag:authority,date:specific (see Section 2)

   Relevant ancillary documentation:

      See Sections 1-4 above and References section below.

   Identifier uniqueness considerations:

      Guaranteed by uniqueness of assignment of a domain name or email
      address on a given date -- as long as the 'specific' string is
      locally unique. See Section 3 above.

   Identifier persistence considerations:

      A tag URN persistently designates the resource to which the minter
      of the tag bound it. This Draft does not mandate any particular
      protocol for effecting that binding.

   Process of identifier assignment:

      Assignment of these URNs is delegated to entities that hold domain
      names or email addresses (See Section 2).

   Process for identifier resolution:

      No resolution procedures are mandated.

   Rules for Lexical Equivalence:

      Character-by-character equality. See section 2.1 above.

   Conformance with URN Syntax:

      No special considerations.

Kindberg          Informational - Expires March 1, 2002         [Page 8]

Internet-Draft                     Tags                   September 2001

   Validation mechanism:

      None specified.




   [DATETIME]  M. Wolf and C. Wicksteed (1998). Date and Time Formats,
               W3C Note. Revised 27 August 1998. This document is
   [DOI]       Norman Paskin (1997). Information Identifiers. Learned
               Publishing, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 135-156, April. See also
   [ISO11578]  ISO (International Organization for Standardization).
               ISO/IEC 11578:1996. "Information technology - Open
               Systems Interconnection - Remote Procedure Call (RPC)"
   [ISO8601]   ISO (International Organization for Standardization). ISO
               8601:1988. Data elements and interchange formats --
               Information interchange -- Representation of dates and
   [OID]       ITU-T recommendation X.208 (ASN.1). See also RFC 1778.
   [RFC822]    David H. Crocker (1982). Standard for the format of ARPA
               Internet text messages.
   [RFC1035]   P. Mocapetris (1987). Domain Names - implementation and
   [RFC2141]   R. Moats (1997). URN syntax.
   [RFC2396]   T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, L. Masinter (1998). Uniform
               Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax.
   [RFC3061]   M. Mealling (2001). A URN Namespace of Object
   [UUID]      Paul Leach, Rich Salz (1997). UUIDs and GUIDs. Internet-
               Draft Draft-leach-uuids-01.


   Tim Kindberg
   Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
   1501 Page Mill Road
   Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA
   Tel:   +1 650 857-5609
   Email: timothy@hpl.hp.com

Kindberg          Informational - Expires March 1, 2002         [Page 9]

Internet-Draft                     Tags                   September 2001

   Sandro Hawke
   World Wide Web Consortium
   200 Technology Square
   Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
   Tel:   +1 617 253-7288
   Email: sandro@w3.org

Kindberg          Informational - Expires March 1, 2002        [Page 10]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.111, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/