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

Versions: (draft-saintandre-urnbis-2141bis) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 RFC 8141

URNBIS                                                    P. Saint-Andre
Internet-Draft                                                  Filament
Obsoletes: 2141, 3406 (if approved)                           J. Klensin
Intended status: Standards Track                           June 27, 2016
Expires: December 29, 2016


                     Uniform Resource Names (URNs)
                  draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-17

Abstract

   A Uniform Resource Name (URN) is a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
   that is assigned under the "urn" scheme and a particular URN
   namespace, with the intent that the URN will be either a persistent,
   location-independent resource identifier or in some cases an abstract
   designator that is persistent but that does not identify a resource.
   With regard to URN syntax, this document defines the canonical syntax
   for URNs (in a way that is consistent with URI syntax), specifies
   methods for determining URN equivalence, and discusses URI
   conformance.  With regard to URN namespaces, this document specifies
   a method for defining a URN namespace and associating it with a
   namespace identifier, and describes procedures for registering
   namespace identifiers with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
   (IANA).  This document obsoletes both RFC 2141 and RFC 3406.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 29, 2016.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Specificity and this Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     1.2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   2.  URN Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.1.  Namespace Identifier (NID)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.2.  Namespace Specific String (NSS) . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.3.  Optional Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.3.1.  q-component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       2.3.2.  r-component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       2.3.3.  f-component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   3.  URN Equivalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.1.  Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     3.2.  Examples  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   4.  URI Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.1.  Use in URI Protocol Slots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.2.  Parsing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.3.  URNs and Relative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     4.4.  Transport and Display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     4.5.  URI Design and Ownership  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   5.  URN Namespaces  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     5.1.  Formal Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     5.2.  Informal Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   6.  Defining and Registering a URN Namespace  . . . . . . . . . .  21
     6.1.  Overview  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


     6.2.  Registration Policy and Process: Community Registrations   22
     6.3.  Registration Policy and Process: Fast Track for Standards
           Development Organizations, Scientific Societies, and
           Similar Bodies  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.4.  Completing the Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       6.4.1.  Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
       6.4.2.  Syntax  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       6.4.3.  Assignment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       6.4.4.  Security and Privacy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
       6.4.5.  Interoperability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       6.4.6.  Resolution  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       6.4.7.  Additional Information  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     7.1.  URI Scheme  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     7.2.  Registration of URN Namespaces  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   8.  Security and Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   Appendix A.  Registration Template  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   Appendix B.  Changes from RFC 2141  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     B.1.  Syntax changes from RFC 2141  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
     B.2.  Other changes from RFC 2141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
   Appendix C.  Changes from RFC 3406  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   Appendix D.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   Appendix E.  Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
   Appendix F.  Change log for versions of draft-ietf-urnbis-
                rfc2141bis-urn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     F.1.  Changes from -08 to -09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     F.2.  Changes from -09 to -10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
     F.3.  Changes from -10 to -11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     F.4.  Changes from -11 to -12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     F.5.  Changes from -12 to -13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36
     F.6.  Changes from -13 to -14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     F.7.  Changes from -14 to -15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37
     F.8.  Changes from -15 (2016-02-04) to -16  . . . . . . . . . .  37
     F.9.  Changes from -16 (2016-04-16) to -17  . . . . . . . . . .  38
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39

1.  Introduction

   A Uniform Resource Name (URN) is a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
   [RFC3986] that is assigned under the "urn" scheme and a particular
   namespace, with the intent that the URN will be either a persistent,
   location-independent resource identifier or in some cases an abstract
   designator that is persistent but that does not identify a resource.
   A URN namespace is a collection of such identifiers, each of which is
   (1) unique, (2) assigned in a consistent and managed way, and (3)



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   assigned according to a common definition.  (Some URN namespaces
   create names that exist only as URNs, whereas others create URNs out
   of names that already exist in other identifier systems, such as
   ISBNs [RFC3187] and ISSNs [RFC3044].)

   The assignment of URNs is done by an organization (or, in some cases,
   according to an algorithm or other automated process) that has been
   formally delegated a namespace within the "urn" scheme (e.g., a URN
   in the 'example' namespace [RFC6963] might be of the form
   "urn:example:foo").

   This document rests on two key assumptions:

   1.  Assignment of a URN is a managed process.

   2.  The space of URN namespaces is itself managed.

   While other URI schemes may allow identifiers to be freely chosen and
   assigned, such is not the case for URNs.  The syntactical correctness
   of a string starting with "urn:" is not sufficient to make it a URN.
   In order for the string to be a valid URN, the namespace identifier
   needs to be registered in accordance with the rules defined here and
   the remaining parts of the assigned-name portion of the URN needs to
   be generated in accordance with the rules for the registered
   namespace.

   So that information about both URN syntax and URN namespaces is
   available in one place, this document does the following:

   1.  Defines the canonical syntax for URNs in general (in a way that
       is consistent with URI syntax), specifies methods for determining
       URN equivalence, and discusses URI conformance.

   2.  Specifies a method for defining a URN namespace and associating
       it with a namespace identifier, and describes procedures for
       registering namespace identifiers with the Internet Assigned
       Numbers Authority (IANA).

   For URN syntax and URN namespaces, this document modernizes and
   replaces the definitions from the original URN syntax [RFC2141] and
   namespace definition and registration [RFC3406] specifications.
   These modifications build on the key requirements provided in the
   original functional description for URN [RFC1737] and many years of
   experience.  In both those original documents and the present one,
   the intent is to define URNs in a consistent manner so that, wherever
   practical, the parsing, handling, and resolution of URNs can be
   independent of the namespace within which a given URN is assigned.




Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   Together with input from several key user communities, the history
   and experiences dictated expansion of the URN definition to support
   new functionality, including the use of syntax explicitly reserved
   for future standardization in RFC 2141.  All namespaces and URNs that
   were valid under the earlier specifications remain valid even though
   it may be useful to update some of them to take advantage of new
   features.

   Summaries of changes from RFC 2141 and RFC 3406 appear in Appendix B
   and Appendix C respectively.  This document obsoletes both [RFC2141]
   and [RFC3406].  While it does not explicitly update or replace
   [RFC1737] or [RFC2276] the reader who references those documents
   should be aware that the conceptual model of URNs in this document is
   slightly different from those older specifications.

1.1.  Specificity and this Standard

   To a degree much greater than when URNs were first considered and
   their uses outlined (Cf.  [RFC1737]) issues of persistent identifiers
   on the Internet involve fundamental design tradeoffs and research
   questions that are much broader that URNs or the URN approach.  Ideal
   and comprehensive specifications about what should be done or
   required across the entire range of URNs would require general
   agreement about those issues and their resolution.  While some of
   them were introduced by the Internet or computer-age approaches to
   character encodings and data abstraction, others predate the Internet
   and computer systems by centuries; there is unlikely to be agreement
   about comprehensive solutions in the near future.

   Among these general issues, one that is specific to URNs is the
   fairly abstract topic of "resolution", discussed in Section 1.2,
   Section 2.3.2, and elsewhere below.  While it is possible to define
   the relationships quite precisely for a URN that resolves to a URL
   that, in turn, resolves (or locates) to a single target document or
   similar resource, that is only one special case albeit an important
   one.  URNs (either individually or entire namespaces as defined
   below) that do not resolve to URLs at all or that resolve to metadata
   or non-Internet objects are among URN use cases explicitly permitted
   by this specification; each leaves the concept of "resolution"
   somewhat more abstract and difficult than the simple case of
   resolution to a URL.

   A similar set of issues arises for character sets and encodings.
   URNs, especially URNs that will be used as user-facing identifiers,
   should be convenient to use in local languages and writing systems,
   easily specified with a wide range of keyboards and local
   conventions, and unambiguous.  There are tradeoffs among those goals
   and it is impossible at present to see how a simple and readily-



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   understandable set of rules could be developed that would be optimal,
   or even reasonable, for all URNs.  The discussion in Section 2.2
   defines an overall framework that should make generalized parsing and
   processing possible, but also makes recommendations about rules for
   individual namespaces.

   This specification consequently contains some requirements and
   flexibility that would not be present in a more perfect world but
   that are necessary in order to allow producing any consensus
   specification at all rather than just giving up on URNs going
   forward.

1.2.  Terminology

   This document uses the terms "resolution" and "resolver" in roughly
   the sense in which they were used in the original discussion of
   architectural principles for URNs [RFC2276], i.e., "resolution" is
   the act of supplying services related to the identified resource,
   such as translating the persistent name into one or more current
   locators for the resource, delivering metadata about the resource in
   an appropriate format, or even delivering a document object from a
   convenient source without requiring further intermediaries.  At the
   time of this writing, resolution services are described in [RFC2483].
   In order to underline the difference between the names and locators,
   this document uses the term Uniform Resource Locator (URL), rather
   than the generic term Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), to refer to
   locators; see also Section 1.1.3 of [RFC3986].

   If there are or will be resolution services available for a URN, this
   document calls the URN a "resource identifier" in roughly the sense
   that term is used in [RFC3986].  If there is no intention to provide
   any resolution services, and the distinction is important, this
   document calls the URN an "abstract designator".

   Several other important terms used in this document, including some
   "normalization" operations that are not part of the Unicode Standard
   [UNICODE], are defined in the URI specification [RFC3986].

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   [RFC2119].

2.  URN Syntax

   As discussed above, the syntax for URNs in this specification allows
   significantly more functionality than was the case in the earlier
   specifications.  It is also harmonized with the general URI syntax



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   [RFC3986].  That syntax definition was completed after the earlier
   URN specifications.

   However, this specification does not extend the URN syntax to allow
   direct use of characters outside the ASCII range [RFC20].  That
   prohibition implies that any such characters need to be percent-
   encoded as described in Section 2.1 of the URI specification
   [RFC3986].

   The basic syntax for a URN is defined using the Augmented Backus-Naur
   Form (ABNF) as specified in [RFC5234].  Rules not defined here
   (specifically: alphanum, fragment, and pchar) are defined as part of
   the URI syntax [RFC3986] and used here to point out the syntactic
   relationship with the terms used there.  The definitions of some of
   the terms used below are not complete; additional restrictions are
   imposed sections of the document that are specific to those terms.

      namestring    = assigned-name
                      [ rq-components ]
                      [ "#" f-component ]
      assigned-name = "urn" ":" NID ":" NSS
      NID           = (alphanum) 0*30(ldh) (alphanum)
      ldh           = alphanum / "-"
      NSS           = pchar *(pchar / "/")
      rq-components =  ( "?="  q-component
                          [ "?+" r-component ] ) /
                       ( "?+" r-component
                          [ "?="  q-component ] )
      q-component   = pchar *( pchar / "/" / "?" )
      r-component   = pchar *( pchar / "/" / "?" )
      f-component   = fragment

   The question mark character "?" can be used without percent-encoding
   inside q-components, r-components, and f-components.  Other than
   inside those components a "?" that is not immediately followed by "="
   or "+" is not defined for URNs and SHOULD be treated as a syntax
   error by URN-specific parsers and other processors.

   The following sections provide additional information about the
   syntactic elements of URNs.

2.1.  Namespace Identifier (NID)

   Namespace Identifiers (NIDs) are case insensitive (e.g., "ISBN" and
   "isbn" are equivalent).

   Characters outside the ASCII range [RFC20] are not permitted in NIDs,
   and no encoding mechanism for such characters is supported.



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   Section 5.1 and Section 5.2 impose additional constraints on the
   strings that can be used as NIDs, i.e., the syntax shown above is not
   comprehensive.

2.2.  Namespace Specific String (NSS)

   The namespace specific string (NSS) is a unique identifier within a
   namespace that is assigned and managed in a consistent way and that
   conforms to the definition of the relevant namespace.  The
   combination of the NID (unique across the entire "urn" scheme) and
   the NSS (unique within the namespace) ensures that the resulting URN
   is a globally unique URI.

   The NSS specified in this document allows characters not permitted by
   earlier specifications (see Appendix B.  In particular, the "/"
   character, which is now allowed, effectively makes it possible to
   encapsulate hierarchical identifiers from other naming systems.  For
   instance, consider the hypothetical example of a hierarchical naming
   system in which the identifiers take the form of a sequence of
   numbers separated by the "/" character, such as "1/406/47452/2".  If
   the naming authority for such identifiers were to use URNs, it would
   be natural to place the existing identifiers in the NSS, resulting in
   URNs such as "urn:example:1/406/47452/2".

   The changes to the syntax for the NSS do not modify the encoding
   rules for URN namespaces that were defined in accordance with
   [RFC2141].  If any such URN namespace that is used outside of the URN
   context (i.e., as a standalone, non-embedded, identifier space) also
   allows the use of "/", "~", or "&" in the native form within that
   identifier space, then the encoding rules for that namespace are not
   changed by this specification.

   [[CREF1: Placeholder for call: In his 2016-05-05 12:48 +0000 note,
   Henry expressed the concern that "name" and "namespace" were not used
   consistently and/or adequately defined, singling out the following
   paragraph as an example.  Applying his suggested fix will take some
   thought and no one has followed the comment up on the list, so the
   text is unchanged so far.]]

   Depending on the rules governing a namespace, strings that are valid
   in an NSS associated with that namespace might contain characters
   that are not allowed by the "pchar" production referenced above
   (e.g., characters outside the ASCII range or, consistent with the
   restrictions in RFC 3986, the characters "/", "?", "#", "[", and
   "]").  While such a string might be a valid name, it is not a valid
   URN until it has been translated into a conformant NSS.  In the case
   of URNs that are formed from names that exist separately in a
   standalone identifier space, translation of an identifier from its



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   "native" format to URN format is accomplished by using the
   canonicalization and encoding methods defined for that URN namespace.
   Software that is not aware of those namespace-specific
   canonicalization and encoding rules MUST NOT construct URNs from the
   names in the standalone identifier space.

   In particular, with regard to characters outside the ASCII range,
   URNs that appear in protocols or that are passed between systems MUST
   use only Unicode characters encoded in UTF-8 and further encoded as
   required by RFC 3986.  To the extent feasible consistent with the
   requirements of identifiers defined and standardized elsewhere and
   the principles discussed in Section 1.1, strings SHOULD be restricted
   to either ASCII letters and digits or to the characters and syntax of
   some widely-used identifier model such as those of IDNA [RFC5890],
   PRECIS [RFC7613], or the Unicode Identifier and Pattern Syntax spec
   [UAX31].

   In order to make URNs as stable and persistent as possible when
   protocols evolve and the environment around them changes, namespaces
   SHOULD NOT allow characters outside the basic Latin repertoire
   [RFC20] unless the nature of the particular namespace makes such
   characters necessary.

2.3.  Optional Components

   This specification includes three optional components in the URN
   syntax.  They are known as q-component, r-component, and f-component
   and are described in more detail below.  Because this specification
   focuses almost exclusively on URN syntax, it does not define detailed
   semantics of these components for URNs in general.  However, each of
   these components has a distinct role that is independent of the URN
   and its namespace.  It is intended that clients will be able to
   handle these components uniformly for all URNs.  These components MAY
   be used with URNs from existing namespaces, whether or not a
   namespace explicitly supports them.  However, consistent with the
   approach taken in RFC 3986, the behavior of a URN that contains
   components that are undefined or meaningless for a particular
   namespace or resource is not defined.  The following sections
   describe these optional components and their interpretation in
   greater detail.

2.3.1.  q-component

   The q-component is intended for passing parameters to either the
   named resource or a system that can supply the requested service, for
   interpretation by that resource or system.  (By contrast, passing
   parameters to URN resolution services is handled by r-components as
   described in the next section.)



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   The URN q-component has the same syntax as the URI query component,
   but is introduced by "?=", not the "?" alone.  For URNs which may be
   resolved to a URL, the semantics of the q-component are identical to
   those for the query component of that URL.  So URN resolvers
   returning a URL for a URN with a q-component do this by copying the
   q-component from the URN to the query component of the URL.  If the
   URN does not resolve to a URL the interpretation of the q-component
   is undefined by this specification.  An example of the copying
   operation appears below.

   [[CREF2: Placeholder for call: Sean (note dated 2016-06-03 12:31
   -0700): "I still disagree strongly with the syntax of that paragraph,
   namely, using "?=" as an introducer anywhere in the q-component.]]

   If the URN does not resolve to a URL (i.e., is an abstract designator
   or resolves directly to an object or a non-URL resource designator),
   the interpretation of the q-component is undefined by this
   specification.  Thus, for URNs which may be resolved to a URL, the
   semantics of q-component are identical to those for queries to the
   resource located via that URL.

   For the sake of consistency with RFC 3986, neither the general syntax
   nor the semantics of q-components are defined by, or dependent on,
   the namespace of the URN.  In parallel with RFC 3896, specifics of
   syntax and semantics, e.g., which keywords or terms are meaningful,
   of course may depend on a particular namespace or even a particular
   resource.

   The sequence "?=" introduces the q-component.  The q-component
   terminates when a "?+" sequence (which begins an r-component) or a
   "#" character (number sign, which begins an f-component) appears.  If
   neither of those appear, the q-component continues to the end of the
   URN.  Note the the q-component itself does not include the "?="
   delimier or any terminating delimiter.  The characters slash ("/")
   and question mark ("?") may represent data within the q-component.
   Note that characters outside the ASCII range [RFC20] MUST be percent-
   encoded using the method defined in Section 2.1 of the generic URI
   specification [RFC3986].

   As described in Section 3, the q-component SHALL NOT be taken into
   account when determining URN equivalence.

   Namespaces and associated information placement in syntax SHOULD be
   designed to avoid any need for a resolution service to consider the
   q-component.  Namespace-specific and more generic resolution systems
   MUST NOT require that q-component information be passed to them for
   processing.




Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   Consider the hypothetical example of passing parameters to an
   application that returns weather reports from different regions or
   for different time periods.  This could perhaps be accomplished by
   specifying latitude and longitude coordinates and datetimes in the
   URN's q-component, resulting in URNs such as the following.



      urn:example:weather?=op=map&lat=39.56
         &lon=-104.85&datetime=1969-07-21T02:56:15Z

   If this example resolved to an HTTP URL, the result might look like:



      https://weatherapp.example?op=map&lat=39.56
         &lon=-104.85&datetime=1969-07-21T02:56:15Z

2.3.2.  r-component

   The r-component is intended for passing parameters to URN resolution
   services (taken broadly, see Section 1.1) and interpreted by those
   services.  (By contrast, passing parameters to the resources
   identified by a URN, or to applications that manage such resources,
   is handled by q-components as described in the previous section.)

   The URN r-component has no syntactic equivalent in URLs.

   The sequence "?+" introduces the r-component just as "?=" introduces
   the q-component as discussed above.  The r-component ends with a "?="
   sequence (which begins a q-component) or a "#" character (number
   sign, which begins an f-component).  If neither of those appear, the
   r-component continues to the end of the URN.  Note that characters
   outside the ASCII range [RFC20] MUST be percent-encoded using the
   method defined in Section 2.1 of the generic URI specification
   [RFC3986].

   As described under Section 3, the r-component SHALL NOT be taken into
   account when determining URN equivalence.  However, the r-component
   SHALL be supplied along with the URN when presenting a request to a
   URN resolution service.

   This document defines only the syntax of the r-component and reserves
   it for future use.  The exact semantics of the r-component and its
   use in URN resolution protocols are a matter for potential
   standardization in separate specifications, presumably including
   specifications that define conventions and a registry for resolution
   service identifiers.



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   Consider the hypothetical example of passing parameters to a
   resolution service (say, an ISO alpha-2 country code [ISO3166-1] in
   order to select the preferred country in which to search for a
   physical copy of a book).  This could perhaps be accomplished by
   specifying the country code in the r-component, resulting in URNs
   such as:

      urn:example:foo-bar-baz-qux?+CCResolve: cc=uk

   While the above should serve as a general explanation and
   illustration of the intent for r-components, there are many
   unresolved issues with them, including their relationship to
   resolution mechanisms associated with the particular NID and
   namespace at registration time.  Thus r-components SHOULD NOT be used
   for actual URNs until additional development and standardization work
   is complete, including specification of any necessary registration
   mechanisms.

2.3.3.  f-component

   [[CREF3: Placeholder for call: AFAICT, we still have people arguing
   for saying less about f-components while others insisted earlier on
   saying more after a round of trying to say less.  Up to the call, the
   WG Chairs, and whatever consensus calls might be made, but the
   current editor's default is that the balance is about as close as we
   are going to get it.]]

   The f-component is intended to be interpreted by the client as a
   specification for a location within, or region of, the named
   resource.

   The URN f-component has the same syntax as the URI fragment
   component.  If a URN containing an f-component resolves to a single
   URL associated with the named resource, the f-component from the URN
   can be applied (usually by the client) verbatim as the fragment of
   that URL.  If the URN does not resolve to a URL (e.g., is an abstract
   designator), the interpretation of the f-component is undefined by
   this specification.  Thus, for URNs which may be resolved to a URL,
   the semantics of f-components are identical to those of fragments for
   that resource.

   For the sake of consistency with RFC 3986, neither the general syntax
   nor the semantics of f-components are defined by, or dependent on,
   the namespace of the URN.  In parallel with RFC 3896, specifics of
   syntax and semantics, e.g., which keywords or terms are meaningful,
   of course may depend on a particular namespace or even a particular
   resource.




Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   The f-component is indicated by the presence of a number sign ("#")
   character and terminated by the end of the URI.  Any characters
   outside the ASCII range [RFC20] that appear in the f-component MUST
   be percent-encoded using the method defined in Section 2.1 of the
   generic URI specification [RFC3986].

   As described under Section 3, the f-component SHALL NOT be taken into
   account when determining URN equivalence.

   Clients SHOULD NOT pass f-components to resolution services unless
   those services also perform object retrieval and interpretation
   functions.

   The f-component is primarily intended to distinguish the constituent
   parts of resources named by URNs.  Thus, for URNs that resolve to
   URLs of the named resources, the semantics of an f-component are
   defined by the media type of those resources, not by the namespace.

   Consider the hypothetical example of obtaining resources that are
   part of a larger entity (say, the chapters of a book).  Each part
   could be specified in the f-component, resulting in URNs such as:

   urn:example:foo-bar-baz-qux#somepart

3.  URN Equivalence

3.1.  Procedure

   For various purposes such as caching, it is often desirable to
   determine if two URNs are "the same".  This is done most generally
   (i.e., independent of the scheme) by testing for equivalence (see
   Section 6.1 of [RFC3986]).

   The generic URI specification [RFC3986] is very flexible about
   equality comparisons, putting the focus on allowing false negatives
   and avoiding false positives.  If comparisons are made in a scheme-
   independent way, i.e., as URI comparisons only, URNs that this
   specification considers equal would be rejected.  The discussion
   below applies when the URIs involved are known to be URNs.

   Two URNs are equivalent (as URNs) if their <assigned-name> portions
   are octet-by-octet equal after applying case normalization (as
   specified in Section 6.2.2.1 of [RFC3986]) to the following
   constructs:

   1.  the URI scheme "urn", by conversion to lower case

   2.  the NID, by conversion to lower case



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   3.  any percent-encoded characters in the NSS (that is, all character
       triplets that match the <pct-encoding> production found in
       Section 2.1 of the base URI specification [RFC3986]), by
       conversion to upper case for the digits A-F.

   Percent-encoded characters MUST NOT be decoded, i.e., percent-
   encoding normalization (as specified in Section 6.2.2.2 of [RFC3986])
   MUST NOT be applied as part of the comparison process.

   If a q-component, r-component, or f-component (or any combination
   thereof) are included in a URN, they MUST be ignored for purposes of
   determining URN equivalence.

   URN namespace definitions MAY include additional rules for URN
   equivalence, such as case-insensitivity of the NSS (or parts
   thereof).  Such rules MUST always have the effect of eliminating some
   of the false negatives obtained by the procedure above and MUST NOT
   result in treating two URNs as not equivalent if the procedure here
   says they are equivalent.  For related considerations with regard to
   NID registration, see below.

3.2.  Examples

   This section shows a variety of URNs (using the "example" NID defined
   in [RFC6963]) that highlight the URN equivalence rules.

   First, because the scheme and NID are case-insensitive, the following
   URNs are equivalent to each other:

   o  urn:example:a123,z456

   o  URN:example:a123,z456

   o  urn:EXAMPLE:a123,z456

   Second, because the q-component and f-component are not taken into
   account for purposes of testing URN equivalence, the following URNs
   are equivalent to the first three examples above:

   o  urn:example:a123,z456?=abc

   o  urn:example:a123,z456#789

   o  urn:example:a123,z456#abc

   Third, because the "/" character (and anything that follows it) in
   the NSS is taken into account for purposes of URN equivalence, the




Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   following URNs are not equivalent to each other or to the preceding
   URNs:

   o  urn:example:a123,z456/foo

   o  urn:example:a123,z456/bar

   o  urn:example:a123,z456/baz

   Fourth, because of percent-encoding, the following URNs are
   equivalent only to each other (although %2C is the percent-encoded
   transformation of "," from the previous examples, such sequences are
   not decoded for purposes of testing URN equivalence):

   o  urn:example:a123%2Cz456

   o  URN:EXAMPLE:a123%2cz456

   Fifth, because characters other than percent-encoded sequences in the
   NSS are treated in a case-sensitive manner (unless otherwise
   specified for the namespace in question), the following URNs are not
   equivalent to the first three URNs:

   o  urn:example:A123,z456

   o  urn:example:a123,Z456

   Sixth, on casual visual inspection of a URN presented in a human-
   oriented interface the following URN might appear the same as the
   first three URNs (because U+0430 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER A can be
   confused with U+0061 LATIN SMALL LETTER A), but it is not equivalent:

   o  urn:example:%D0%B0123,z456

4.  URI Conformance

4.1.  Use in URI Protocol Slots

   Because a URN is, syntactically, a URI under the "urn" scheme, in
   theory a URN can be placed in any protocol slot that allows for a URI
   (e.g., the 'href' and 'src' attributes in HTML, the <base/> element
   in HTML, the 'xml:base' attribute in XML [XML-BASE], and the 'xmlns'
   attribute in XML for XML namespace names [XML-NAMES]).

   However, this does not imply that, semantically, it always makes
   sense in practice to place a URN in a given URI protocol slot; in
   particular, because a URN might not specify the location of a
   resource or even point indirectly to one, it might not be appropriate



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   to place a URN in a URI protocol slot that points to a resource
   (e.g., the aforementioned 'href' and 'src' attributes).

   Ultimately, guidelines regarding when it is appropriate to use URIs
   under the "urn" scheme (or any other scheme) are the responsibility
   of specifications for individual URI protocol slots (e.g., the
   specification for the 'xml:base' attribute in XML might recommend
   that it is inappropriate to use URNs in that protocol slot).  This
   specification cannot possibly anticipate all of the relevant cases,
   and it is not the place of this specification to require or restrict
   usage for individual protocol slots.

4.2.  Parsing

   In part because of the separation of URN semantics from more general
   URI syntax [I-D.ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif], generic URI processors
   need to pay special attention to the parsing and analysis rules of
   RFC 3986 and, in particular, must treat the URI as opaque unless the
   scheme and its requirements are recognized.  In the latter case, such
   processors may be in a position to invoke scheme-appropriate
   processing such as by a URN resolver.  The URN resolver can either be
   an external resolver that the URI resolver knows of, or it can be
   functionality built into the URI resolver.  Note that this
   requirement might impose constraints on the contexts in which URNs
   are appropriately used; see Section 4.1.

4.3.  URNs and Relative References

   Section 5.2 of [RFC3986] describes an algorithm for converting a URI
   reference that might be relative to a given base URI into "parsed
   components" of the target of that reference, which can then be
   recomposed per RFC 3986 Section 5.3 into a target URI.  This
   algorithm cannot be applied directly to URNs because their syntax
   does not support the necessary path components.  Whenever a URN
   resolves to a URL which may be used to access the resource, there is
   a more specific interpretation of q-component and f-component: the
   q-component is copied verbatim to the query portion of the URL (if
   that URL scheme supports query), and the f-component is copied
   verbatim to the fragment portion of the URL.  Even though the notion
   of a URN as a "persistent", "permanent" identifier does not reconcile
   easily with relative referencing, resources named with URNs may
   contain relative references that do not apply to the URN itself.

   Given the foregoing, a relative reference SHOULD NOT be evaluated
   directly with respect to a URN.  Instead, a relative reference SHOULD
   be evaluated indirectly with respect to one of the following:

   1.  a base URI (other than a URN) declared by the resource itself; or



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   2.  a base URI (other than a URN) obtained through the URN resolution
       process; or

   3.  the URL of the resource as obtained through the URN resolution
       process

   (Case 2 permits the resolution process to explicitly supply a base
   URI if the resource content is supplied directly by the resolution
   service rather than via an intermediate "location" URI.)

   If no such base URI exists, use of a relative reference with respect
   to a URN is an error.  Client behavior in this case is undefined.

   Resolution services SHOULD ensure that a base URI is supplied any
   time they provide resource content directly to a client.

4.4.  Transport and Display

   When URNs are transported and exchanged, they MUST be represented in
   the format defined herein.  Further, all URN-aware applications MUST
   offer the option of displaying URNs in this canonical form to allow
   for direct transcription (for example by cut-and-paste techniques).
   Such applications might support display of URNs in a more human-
   friendly form and might use a character set that includes characters
   that are not permitted in URN syntax as defined in this specification
   (e.g., when displaying URNs to humans, such applications might
   replace percent-encoded strings with characters from an extended
   character repertoire such as Unicode [UNICODE]).

   To minimize user confusion, a URI browser SHOULD display the complete
   URN (including the "urn" scheme and any components) to ensure that
   there is no confusion between URN namespace identifiers and URI
   scheme identifiers.  For example, a URI beginning with "urn:xmpp:"
   [RFC4854] is very different from a URI beginning with "xmpp:"
   [RFC5122].  Similarly, a potential DOI URI scheme [DOI-URI] is
   different from, and possibly completely unrelated to, a possible DOI
   URN namespace.

4.5.  URI Design and Ownership

   As mentioned, the assignment of URNs is a managed process, as is the
   assignment of namespaces themselves.  Although design of the URNs to
   be assigned within a given namespace is ceded by this specification
   to the namespace owner, doing so in a managed way avoids the problems
   inherent in unmanaged generation of URIs as described in the
   recommendations regarding URI design and ownership [RFC7320].





Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


5.  URN Namespaces

   A URN namespace is a collection of identifiers that obey three
   constraints: each identifier is (1) unique, (2) assigned in a
   consistent way, and (3) assigned according to a common definition.

   1.  The "uniqueness" constraint means that an identifier within the
       namespace is never assigned to more than one resource and never
       reassigned to a different resource (for the kind of "resource"
       identified by URNs assigned within the namespace).  This holds
       true even if the identifier itself is deprecated or becomes
       obsolete.

   2.  The "consistent assignment" constraint means that an identifier
       within the namespace is assigned by an organization or created in
       accordance with a process or algorithm that is always followed.

   3.  The "common definition" constraint means that there are clear
       definitions for the syntax of identifiers within the namespace
       and for the process of assigning or creating them.

   A URN namespace is identified by a particular NID in order to ensure
   the global uniqueness of URNs and, optionally, to provide a cue
   regarding the structure of URNs assigned within a namespace.

   With regard to global uniqueness, using different NIDs for different
   collections of identifiers ensures that no two URNs will be the same
   for different resources, since each collection is required to
   uniquely assign each identifier.  However, a single resource MAY have
   more than one URN assigned to it, either in the same namespace (if
   the namespace permits it) or in different namespaces, and either for
   similar purposes or different purposes.  (For example, if a publisher
   assigns an ISBN to an electronic publication and that publication is
   later incorporated into a digital long term archive operated by a
   national library, the library might assign the publication a NBN,
   resulting in two URNs referring to the same book.)  Subject to other
   constraints, such as those imposed by the URI syntax [RFC3986], the
   rules of the URN scheme are intended to allow preserving the normal
   and natural form of identifiers specified elsewhere when they are
   treated as URN namespaces.

   With regard to the structure of URNs assigned within a namespace, the
   development of an identifier structure (and thereby a collection of
   identifiers) depends on the requirements of the community defining
   the identifiers, how the identifiers will be assigned and used, etc.
   These issues are beyond the scope of URN syntax and the general rules
   for URN namespaces, because they are specific to the community
   defining a namespace (e.g., the bibliographic and publishing



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   communities in the case of the 'ISBN' and 'ISSN' namespaces, or the
   developers of extensions to the Extensible Messaging and Presence
   Protocol in the case of the 'XMPP' namespace).

   URN namespaces inherit certain rights and responsibilities by the
   nature of URNs, e.g.:

   1.  They uphold the general principles of a well-managed URN
       namespace by providing persistent identification of resources and
       unique assignment of identifier strings in accordance with a
       common definition.

   2.  Optionally, they can be registered in global registration
       services such as those described in [RFC2483].

   There are two types of URN namespace: formal and informal.  These are
   distinguished by the expected level of service, the information
   needed to define the namespace, and the procedures for registration.
   Because the majority of the namespaces registered so far have been
   formal, this document concentrates on formal namespaces.

5.1.  Formal Namespaces

   A formal namespace provides benefit to some subset of users on the
   Internet.  In particular, it would not make sense for a formal
   namespace to be used only by a community or network that is not
   connected to the Internet.  For example, it would be inappropriate
   for a NID to effectively force someone to use a proprietary network
   or service not open to the general Internet user.  The intent is
   that, while the community of those who might actively use the names
   assigned within that NID might be small, the potential use of
   identifiers within that NID is open to any user on the Internet.
   Formal NIDs might be appropriate even when some aspects are not fully
   open.  For example, a namespace might make use of a fee-based,
   privately managed, or proprietary registry for assignment of URNs in
   the namespace.  However, it might still benefit some Internet users
   if the associated services have openly-published identifiers.

   An organization that will assign URNs within a formal namespace
   SHOULD meet the following criteria:

   1.  Organizational stability and the ability to maintain the URN
       namespace for a long time; absent such evidence, it ought to be
       clear how the namespace can remain viable if the organization can
       no longer maintain the namespace.

   2.  Competency in name assignment.  This will improve the likelihood
       of persistence (e.g. to minimize the likelihood of conflicts).



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   3.  Commitment to not reassigning existing names and to allowing old
       names to continue to be valid (e.g., if the assignee of a name is
       no longer a member or customer of the assigning organization, if
       various information about the assignee or named entity happens to
       change, or even if the assignee or the named entity itself is no
       longer in existence; in all these cases, the name is still
       valid).

   A formal namespace establishes a particular NID, subject to the
   following constraints (above and beyond the syntax rules already
   specified):

   1.  It MUST NOT be an already-registered NID.

   2.  It MUST NOT start with "urn-" (which is reserved for informal
       namespaces).

   3.  It MUST be more than two characters long.

   4.  It MUST NOT start with ALPHA ALPHA "-", i.e., any string
       consisting of two letters followed by one hyphen.

   5.  It MUST NOT start with the string "xn--" or any other string
       consisting of two letters followed by two hyphens.  Such strings
       are reserved for potential representation of DNS A-labels and
       similar strings in the future [RFC5890].

   6.  It MUST NOT start with the string "X-" so that it will not be
       confused with or conflict any experimental namespace previously
       permitted by [RFC3406].

   All two-letter strings, and all two-letter strings followed by "-"
   and any sequence of valid NID characters, are reserved for potential
   use as NIDs based on ISO alpha-2 country codes [ISO3166-1] for
   eventual national registrations of URN namespaces.  The definition
   and scoping of rules for allocation of responsibility for such
   country-code-based namespaces is beyond the scope of this document.

   Applicants and reviewers considering new NIDs should also be aware
   that they may be considered as names with semantic implications and
   hence a source of conflict.  Particular attention should be paid to
   strings that might be construed as names of, or registered under the
   authority of, countries (including ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes) and to
   strings that might imply association with existing URI schemes,
   identifier systems, or trademarks.  However, in line with traditional
   policies, disputes about "ownership" of particular strings are
   disagreements among the parties involved; neither IANA nor the IETF




Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   will become involved in such disputes except in response to orders
   from a court of competent jurisdiction.

5.2.  Informal Namespaces

   Informal namespaces are full-fledged URN namespaces, with all the
   associated rights and responsibilities.  Informal namespaces differ
   from formal namespaces in the process for assigning a NID: for an
   informal namespace, the registrant does not designate the NID;
   instead, IANA assigns a NID consisting of the string 'urn-' followed
   by one or more digits (e.g., "urn-7") where the digits consist of the
   next available number in the sequence of positive integers assigned
   to informal namespaces.  Thus the syntax of an informal namespace is:

       InformalNamespaceName = "urn-" Number
       Number                = DigitNonZero 0*Digit
       DigitNonZero          = "1"/ "2" / "3" / "4"/ "5"
                             / "6" / "7" / "8" / "9"
       Digit                 = "0" / DigitNonZero

   The only restrictions on <Number> are that it (1) consist strictly of
   ASCII digits, that it (2) not have leading zeros, and that it (3) not
   cause the NID to exceed the length limitations defined for the URN
   syntax.

6.  Defining and Registering a URN Namespace

6.1.  Overview

   Because the space of URN namespaces is itself managed, the definition
   of a namespace SHOULD pay particular attention to:

   1.  The purpose of the namespace.

   2.  The syntax of URNs assigned within the namespace, including the
       internal syntax and anticipated effects of q-components or
       r-components.  (The syntax and interpretation of f-components are
       defined in RFC 3986.)

   3.  The process for assigning URNs within the namespace.

   4.  The security implications of assigning URNs within the namespace
       and using the assigned URNs.

   5.  Any potential interoperability issues with URNs assigned within
       the namespace.





Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   6.  Optionally, the process for resolving URNs issued within the
       namespace.

   The section on completing the template (Section 6.4) explains these
   matters in greater detail.  Although the registration templates are
   the same in all cases, slightly different procedures are used
   depending on the source of the registration.

6.2.  Registration Policy and Process: Community Registrations

   The basic registration policy for URN namespaces is Expert Review as
   defined in the "IANA Considerations" document [RFC5226].  For
   namespaces or their definitions that are intended to become standards
   or normative components of standards, the output of the Expert Review
   process is intended to be a report, rather than instructions to IANA
   to take action (see below).  The key steps are:

   1.  Fill out the namespace registration template (see Section 6.4 and
       Appendix A).  This can be done as part of an Internet-Draft or a
       specification in another series, although that is not necessary.

   2.  Send the completed template to the urn@ietf.org discussion list
       for review.

   3.  If necessary to address comments received, repeat steps 1 and 2.

   4.  If the designated experts approve the request and no
       standardization action is involved, the IANA will register the
       requested NID.  If standardization is anticipated, the designated
       experts will prepare a report and forward it to the appropriate
       standards approval body (the IESG in the case of the IETF); IANA
       will register the requested NID only after receiving directions
       from that body and a copy of the expert review report.

   A namespace registration can be revised by updating the registration
   template, following the same steps outlined above for new
   registrations.  A revised registration MUST describe differences from
   prior versions and SHOULD make special note of any relevant changes
   in the underlying technologies or namespace management processes.

   Experience to date with namespace registration requests has shown
   that registrants sometimes do not initially understand some of the
   subtleties of URN namespaces, and that defining the namespace in the
   form of a specification enables the registrants to clearly formulate
   their "contract" with the intended user community.  Therefore,
   although the registration policy for formal namespaces is Expert
   Review and a specification is not strictly required, registrants




Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   SHOULD provide a stable specification documenting the namespace
   definition and expanding upon the issues described herein.

   Because naming can be difficult and contentious, namespace
   registrants and the designated experts are strongly encouraged to
   work together in a spirit of good faith and mutual understanding to
   achieve rough consensus (see [RFC7282]) on handling registration
   requests.  They are also encouraged to bring additional expertise
   into the discussion if that would be helpful in providing perspective
   or otherwise resolving issues.

   Especially when iterations in the registration process are prolonged,
   designated experts are expected to take reasonable precautions to
   avoid "race conditions" on proposed NID names and, if such situations
   arise, to encourage applicants to work out any conflicts among
   themselves.

6.3.  Registration Policy and Process: Fast Track for Standards
      Development Organizations, Scientific Societies, and Similar
      Bodies

   The IETF recognizes that situations will arise in which URN
   namespaces will be created to either embed existing and established
   standards, particularly identifier standards, or to reflect
   knowledge, terminology, or methods of organizing information that lie
   well outside the IETF's scope or the likely subject matter knowledge
   of its Designated Experts.  In situations in which the registration
   request originates from, or is authorized by, a recognized standards-
   related organization, scientific society, or similar body, a somewhat
   different procedure is available at the option of that body:

   1.  The namespace registration template is filled out and submitted
       as in steps 1 and 2 above.

   2.  A specification is required that reflects or points to the needed
       external standards or specifications.  Publication in the RFC
       Series or through an IETF process (e.g., posting as an Internet
       Draft) is not expected and would be appropriate only under very
       unusual circumstances.

   3.  The reviews on the discussion list and by the designated experts
       are strictly advisory, with the decisions about what advice to
       accept and the length of time to allocate to the process strictly
       under the control of the external body.

   4.  When that body concludes that the application is sufficiently
       mature, its representative(s) will request that IANA complete the
       registration for the NID, and IANA will do so.



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   Decisions about whether to recognize the requesting entity as a
   standards-related organization, scientific society, or similar body
   are the responsibility of the IESG.

   A model similar to this has already been defined for recognized
   standards-related organizations that wish to register Media Types.
   The document describing that mechanism [RFC6838] provides somewhat
   more information about the general approach.

6.4.  Completing the Template

   A template for defining and registering a URN namespace is provided
   in Appendix A.  This section describes considerations for completing
   the template.

6.4.1.  Purpose

   The "Purpose" section of the template describes matters such as:

   1.  The kinds of resources identified by URNs assigned within the
       namespace.

   2.  The scope and applicability of the URNs assigned within the
       namespace; this might include information about the community of
       use (e.g., a particular nation, industry, technology, or
       organization), whether the assigned URNs will be used on public
       networks or private networks, etc.

   3.  How the intended community (and the Internet community at large)
       will benefit from using or resolving the assigned URNs.

   4.  How the namespace relates to and complements existing URN
       namespaces, URI schemes, and identifier systems.

   5.  The kinds of software applications that can use or resolve the
       assigned URNs (e.g., by differentiating among disparate
       namespaces, identifying resources in a persistent fashion, or
       meaningfully resolving and accessing services associated with the
       namespace).

   6.  Whether resolution services are available or will be available
       (and, if so, the nature or identity of the services).  Examples
       of q-component and, when they are standardized, r-component,
       semantics and syntax are helpful here, even if detailed
       definitions are provided elsewhere later.






Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   7.  Whether the namespace or its definition is expected to become an
       integral or normative element of a standard being developed in
       the IETF or some other recognized standards body.

6.4.2.  Syntax

   The "Syntax" section of the template contains:

   1.  A description of the structure of URNs within the namespace, in
       conformance with the fundamental URN syntax.  The structure might
       be described in terms of a formal definition (e.g., using
       Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications (ABNF) as specified in
       [RFC5234]), an algorithm for generating conformant URNs, or a
       regular expression for parsing the identifier into components;
       alternatively, the structure might be opaque.

   2.  Any special character encoding rules for assigned URNs (e.g.,
       which character ought to always be used for quotes).

   3.  Rules for determining URN equivalence between two identifiers in
       the namespace.  Such rules ought to always have the effect of
       eliminating false negatives that might otherwise result from
       comparison.  If it is appropriate and helpful, reference can be
       made to specific equivalence rules defined in the URI
       specification [RFC3986].  Examples of URN equivalence rules
       include equivalence between uppercase and lowercase characters in
       the Namespace Specific String, between hyphenated and non-
       hyphenated groupings in the identifier string, or between single-
       quotes and double-quotes.  There may also be namespace-specific
       special encoding considerations, especially for URNs that contain
       embedded forms of other types of identifiers.  (Note that these
       are not normative statements for any kind of best practice
       related to handling of relationships between characters in
       general; such statements are limited to one particular namespace
       only.)

   4.  Any special considerations necessary for conforming with the URN
       syntax.  This is particularly applicable in the case of existing
       naming systems that are used in the context of URNs.  For
       example, if a namespace is used in contexts other than URNs, it
       might make use of characters that are reserved in the URN syntax.
       This section ought to note any such characters, and outline
       necessary mappings to conform to URN syntax.  Normally, this will
       be handled by percent-encoding the character as specified in
       Section 2.1 of the URI specification [RFC3986].






Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   5.  Any special considerations for the meaning of q-components (e.g.,
       keywords) or f-components (e.g., predefined terms) in the context
       of this namespace.

6.4.3.  Assignment

   The "Assignment" section of the template describes matters such as:

   1.  Mechanisms or authorities for assigning URNs to resources.  It
       ought to make clear whether assignment is completely open (e.g.,
       following a particular procedure such as first-come, first-served
       (FCFS)), completely closed (e.g., for a private organization), or
       limited in various ways (e.g., delegated to authorities
       recognized by a particular organization); if limited, it ought to
       explain how to become an assigner of identifiers or how to
       request assignment of identifiers from existing assignment
       authorities.

   2.  Methods for ensuring that URNs within the namespace are unique.
       For example, identifiers might be assigned sequentially or in
       accordance with some well-defined process by a single authority,
       assignment might be partitioned among delegated authorities that
       are individually responsible for respecting uniqueness rules, or
       URNs might be created independently following an algorithm that
       itself guarantees uniqueness.

6.4.4.  Security and Privacy

   The "Security and Privacy" section of the template describes any
   potential issues related to security and privacy with regard to
   assignment, use, and resolution of identifiers within the namespace.
   Examples of such issues include:

   o  The consequences of producing false negatives and false positives
      during comparison for URN equivalence (see "Issues in Identifier
      Comparison for Security Purposes" [RFC6943])

   o  Leakage of private information when identifiers are communicated
      on the public Internet

   o  The potential for directory harvesting

   o  Various issues discussed in the guidelines for security
      considerations in RFCs [RFC3552] and the privacy considerations
      for Internet protocols [RFC6973].






Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


6.4.5.  Interoperability

   The "Interoperability" section MUST specify any known potential
   issues related to interoperability.  Examples include possible
   confusion with other URN namespaces or naming systems because of
   syntax (e.g., percent-encoding of certain characters) or scope (e.g.,
   overlapping areas of interest).  If at all possible, concerns that
   arise during the registration of a URN namespace (e.g., due to the
   syntax or scope of an identifier system) should be resolved as part
   of or in parallel to the registration process.

6.4.6.  Resolution

   The "Resolution" section MUST specify whether resolution mechanisms
   are intended or anticipated for URNs assigned within the namespace
   (e.g., URNs within some namespaces are intended to act as abstract
   designators and thus are not intended to be resolved).

   If resolution is intended, then this section SHOULD specify whether
   the organization that assigns URNs within the namespace intends to
   operate or recommend any resolution services for URNs within that
   namespace.  In addition, if the assigning organization intends to
   implement registration for publicly advertised resolution services
   (for example using a system based on principles similar to those
   described in [RFC2276] and [RFC2483]), then this section SHOULD list
   or reference the requirements for being publicly advertised by the
   assigning organization.  In addition, this section SHOULD describe
   any special considerations for the handling of r-components in the
   context of this namespace.

6.4.7.  Additional Information

   Please include any additional information that would be useful to
   those trying to understand this registration or its relationship to
   others, such as comparisons to existing namespaces that might seem to
   overlap.

   This section of the template is optional.

7.  IANA Considerations

7.1.  URI Scheme

   This section updates the registration of the 'urn' URI scheme in the
   Permanent URI Registry [URI-Registry] .

   [Note to RFC Editor: please replace "[ this document ]" with "RFC"
   and the number assigned to this document upon publication.]



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   URI Scheme Name:  urn

   Status:  permanent

   URI Scheme Syntax:  See Section 2 of [ this document ].

   URI Scheme Semantics:  The 'urn' scheme identifies Uniform Resource
      Names, which are persistent, location-independent resource
      identifiers.

   Encoding Considerations:  See Section 2 of [ this document ].

   Applications/Protocols That Use This URI Scheme Name:  Uniform
      Resource Names are used in a wide variety of applications,
      including bibliographic reference systems and as names for
      Extensible Markup Language (XML) namespaces.

   Interoperability Considerations:  See Section 4 of [ this document ].

   Security Considerations:  See Section 6.4.4 and Section 8 of [ this
      document ].

   Contact:  URNBIS WG [mailto:urn@ietf.org]

   Author/Change Controller:  This scheme is registered under the IETF
      tree.  As such, the IETF maintains change control.

   References  None.

7.2.  Registration of URN Namespaces

   This document outlines the processes for registering URN namespaces,
   and has implications for the IANA in terms of registries to be
   maintained (see especially Section 6).  In all cases, the IANA ought
   to assign the appropriate NID (formal or informal) once the
   procedures outlined in this document have been completed.

8.  Security and Privacy Considerations

   The definition of a URN namespace needs to account for potential
   security and privacy issues related to assignment, use, and
   resolution of identifiers within the namespace (e.g., some namespace
   resolvers might assign special meaning to certain characters in the
   Namespace Specific String); see Section 6.4.4 for further discussion.

   In most cases, URN namespaces provide a way to declare public
   information.  Normally, these declarations will have a relatively low
   security profile, however there is always the danger of "spoofing"



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   and providing misinformation.  Information in these declarations
   ought to be taken as advisory.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC20]    Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", RFC 20,
              October 1969.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC3986]  Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform
              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, January 2005.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              May 2008.

   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

9.2.  Informative References

   [DOI-URI]  Paskin, N., Neylon, E., Hammond, T., and S. Sun, "The
              "doi" URI Scheme for the Digital Object Identifier (DOI)",
              June 2003,
              <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-paskin-doi-uri-04.txt>.

   [I-D.ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif]
              Klensin, J., "URN Semantics Clarification", draft-ietf-
              urnbis-semantics-clarif-03 (work in progress), February
              2016.

   [ISO3166-1]
              ISO, "Codes for the representation of names of countries
              and their subdivisions -- Part 1: Country codes",
              ISO 3166-1:2013, 2013.

   [RFC1737]  Sollins, K. and L. Masinter, "Functional Requirements for
              Uniform Resource Names", RFC 1737, December 1994.

   [RFC2141]  Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.

   [RFC2276]  Sollins, K., "Architectural Principles of Uniform Resource
              Name Resolution", RFC 2276, January 1998.



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   [RFC2483]  Mealling, M. and R. Daniel, "URI Resolution Services
              Necessary for URN Resolution", RFC 2483, January 1999.

   [RFC3044]  Rozenfeld, S., "Using The ISSN (International Serial
              Standard Number) as URN (Uniform Resource Names) within an
              ISSN-URN Namespace", RFC 3044, January 2001.

   [RFC3187]  Hakala, J. and H. Walravens, "Using International Standard
              Book Numbers as Uniform Resource Names", RFC 3187, October
              2001.

   [RFC3406]  Daigle, L., van Gulik, D., Iannella, R., and P. Faltstrom,
              "Uniform Resource Names (URN) Namespace Definition
              Mechanisms", BCP 66, RFC 3406, October 2002.

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July
              2003.

   [RFC4854]  Saint-Andre, P., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace
              for Extensions to the Extensible Messaging and Presence
              Protocol (XMPP)", RFC 4854, April 2007.

   [RFC5122]  Saint-Andre, P., "Internationalized Resource Identifiers
              (IRIs) and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) for the
              Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)",
              RFC 5122, February 2008.

   [RFC5890]  Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
              Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
              RFC 5890, August 2010.

   [RFC6648]  Saint-Andre, P., Crocker, D., and M. Nottingham,
              "Deprecating the "X-" Prefix and Similar Constructs in
              Application Protocols", BCP 178, RFC 6648, June 2012.

   [RFC6838]  Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type
              Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13,
              RFC 6838, January 2013.

   [RFC6943]  Thaler, D., "Issues in Identifier Comparison for Security
              Purposes", RFC 6943, May 2013.

   [RFC6963]  Saint-Andre, P., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace
              for Examples", BCP 183, RFC 6963, May 2013.






Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, July
              2013.

   [RFC7282]  Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF",
              RFC 7282, June 2014.

   [RFC7320]  Nottingham, M., "URI Design and Ownership", BCP 190,
              RFC 7320, July 2014.

   [RFC7613]  Saint-Andre, P. and A. Melnikov, "Preparation,
              Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings
              Representing Usernames and Passwords", RFC 7613,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7613, August 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7613>.

   [UAX31]    The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #31:
              Unicode Identifier and Pattern Syntax", June 2015,
              <http://unicode.org/reports/tr31/>.

   [UNICODE]  The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard", 2015,
              <http://www.unicode.org/versions/latest/>.

   [URI-Registry]
              IANA, "Permanent URI Schemes",
              <http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/
              uri-schemes.xhtml#uri-schemes-1>.

   [XML-BASE]
              Marsh, J. and R. Tobin, "XML Base (Second Edition)", World
              Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xmlbase-20090128,
              January 2009,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xmlbase-20090128>.

   [XML-NAMES]
              Thompson, H., Hollander, D., Layman, A., Bray, T., and R.
              Tobin, "Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Third Edition)", World Wide
              Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xml-names-20091208,
              December 2009,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208>.

Appendix A.  Registration Template

   Namespace ID:  Requested of IANA (formal) or assigned by IANA
      (informal).





Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   Version:  The version of the registration, starting with 1 and
      incrementing by 1 with each new version.

   Date:  The date when the registration is requested of IANA, using the
      format YYYY-MM-DD.

   Registrant:  The person or organization that has registered the NID,
      including the name and address of the registering organization, as
      well as the name and contact information (email, phone number, or
      postal address) of the designated contact person.  If the
      registrant is a recognized standards development organization or
      scientific society requesting the fact track registration
      procedure (see Section 6.3), that information should be clearly
      indicated in this section of the template.

   Purpose:  Described under Section 6.4.1 of this document.

   Syntax:  Described under Section 6.4.2 of this document.  Unless the
      registration explicitly says otherwise, use of q-components and
      f-components is not allowed for this namespace.

   Assignment:  Described under Section 6.4.3 of this document.

   Security and Privacy:  Described under Section 6.4.4 of this
      document.

   Interoperability:  Described under Section 6.4.5 of this document.

   Resolution:  Described under Section 6.4.6 of this document.

   Documentation:  A pointer to an RFC, a specification published by
      another standards development organization, or another stable
      document that provides further information about the namespace.

   Additional Information  Described under Section 6.4.7 of this
      document.

   Revision Information:  Description of changes from prior version(s).
      (Applicable only when earlier registrations have been revised.)

   Additional Information:  Any additional information that would be
      useful to the reader or those trying to understand the
      registration, perhaps in context with other work.  May be a
      reference to another document or omitted if not needed.







Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


Appendix B.  Changes from RFC 2141

   This document makes substantive changes from the syntax and semantics
   of [RFC2141]:

B.1.  Syntax changes from RFC 2141

   The syntax of URNs as provided in [RFC2141] was defined before the
   updated specification of URIs in [RFC3986].  The definition of URN
   syntax is updated in this document to do the following:

   o  Ensure consistency with the URI syntax.

   o  Facilitate the use of URNs with parameters similar to URI queries
      and fragments.

   o  Permit parameters influencing URN resolution.

   o  Ease the use of URNs with naming systems that include the '/'
      character.

   In particular, this specification does the following:

   o  Extends URN syntax to explicitly allow the characters '/', "?",
      and "#", which were reserved for future use by RFC 2141.  As
      described below, this change effectively also allows several
      components of the URI syntax although without necessarily tying
      those components to URI semantics.

   o  Defines general syntax for an additional component that can be
      used in interactions with a URN resolution service.

   o  Disallows "-" at the end of a NID.

   o  Allows the "/", "~", and "&" characters in the namespace-specific
      string (NSS).

   o  Makes several smaller syntax adjustments.

B.2.  Other changes from RFC 2141

   o  Formally registers 'urn' as a URI scheme.

   o  Allows what are now called q-components, r-components, and
      f-components.

   In addition, some of the text has been updated to be consistent with
   the definition of Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) [RFC3986] and



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 33]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   the processes for registering information with the IANA [RFC5226], as
   well as more modern guidance with regard to security [RFC3552] and
   privacy [RFC6973] issues and identifier comparison [RFC6943].

Appendix C.  Changes from RFC 3406

   This document makes the following substantive changes from [RFC3406]:

   1.  Relaxes the registration policy for formal namespaces from "IETF
       Review" to "Expert Review" as discussed in Section 6.2.

   2.  Removes the category of experimental namespaces, consistent with
       [RFC6648].  Experimental namespaces were denoted by prefixing the
       namespace identifier with the string "X-".  Because experimental
       namespaces were never registered, removing the experimental
       category has no impact on the existing registries.  Because they
       are not registered, strings that refer to experimental namespaces
       are not valid URNs.  Truly experimental usages MAY, of course,
       employ the 'example' namespace [RFC6963].

   3.  Adds some information too, but generally simplifies, the
       registration template.

Appendix D.  Contributors

   RFC 2141, which provided the basis for the syntax portion of this
   document, was authored by Ryan Moats.

   RFC 3406, which provided the basis for the namespace portion of this
   document, was authored by Leslie Daigle, Dirk-Willem van Gulik,
   Renato Iannella, and Patrik Faltstrom.

   Their work is gratefully acknowledged.

Appendix E.  Acknowledgements

   Many thanks to Marc Blanchet, Leslie Daigle, Martin Duerst, Juha
   Hakala, Ted Hardie, Alfred Hoenes, Paul Jones, Barry Leiba, Sean
   Leonard, Larry Masinter, Keith Moore, Mark Nottingham, Julian
   Reschke, Lars Svensson, Henry S.  Thompson, Dale Worley, and other
   participants in the URNBIS WG for their input.  Alfred Hoenes in
   particular edited an earlier version of this document and served as
   co-chair of the URNBIS WG.

   Juha Hakala deserves special recognition for his dedication to
   successfully completing this work, as do Andrew Newton and Melinda
   Shore in their roles as working group co-chairs and Barry Leiba in
   his role as area director and then as co-chair.



Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 34]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


Appendix F.  Change log for versions of draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn

   [[RFC Editor: please remove this appendix before publication.]]

F.1.  Changes from -08 to -09

   o  Altered the text in Section 4 to reflect list discussions about
      the earlier phrasing.  Also added DOI example and citation to that
      section.

   o  Clarified the naming rules for formal namespaces and their
      relationship to ISO 3166, IDNA, etc., reserved strings.

   o  Added an explicit statement about use of URNs in various protocols
      and contexts to Section 4.

   o  Clarified that experimental namespace NIDs, which were explicitly
      not registered, are not valid URNs (in Section 5.

   o  Transformed the partial production in Section 5.2 into valid ABNF.

   o  Added more text about p-/q-/f-components and recommendations about
      use.

   o  Added clarifying note about "?" within q-components and
      f-components.

   o  Added explicit requirement that revisions of existing
      registrations document the changes and added a slot for that
      description to the template.

   o  Many small editorial changes and adjustments including adding
      additional references and cross-references for clarification.

   o  Inserted a placeholder for additional examples.

F.2.  Changes from -09 to -10

   o  Several clarifying editorial changes, most suggested by Ted Hardie
      and Henry S.  Thompson (some of them off-list).

   o  Added a large number of placeholders that identify issues that
      require WG consideration and resolution (or WG delegation to the
      editors).







Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 35]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


F.3.  Changes from -10 to -11

   o  Removed most of the placeholders added in -10.  Supplied new text
      as required or suggested by on-list discussion of those issues.

   o  Replaced the conformance examples Section 3.2 with a more complete
      collection and discussion.

   o  Revised and consolidated the registration procedure, and added
      provisions for NIDs that are the subject of standards and for
      avoiding race conditions about NID strings.

   o  In response to independent comments from Ted Hardie and Henry S.
      Thompson, called attention to the possibility of conflicts between
      NID strings and various claims of national, corporate, and other
      perogatives.

   o  Changed the production for assigned-name as suggested by Lars
      Svensson.

   o  Several clarifying editorial changes including correcting a glitch
      in instructions to the RFC Editor.

F.4.  Changes from -11 to -12

   o  Removed p-components as a standalone construct, and instead folded
      them into the NSS.

   o  Defined syntax for r-components as a way to pass information to
      resolvers, but left the semantics for future standardization
      efforts.

   o  Further tuned the discussion of interoperability and related
      registration issues.

   o  Made a number of editorial corrections and reorganized the syntax
      material in Section 2 somewhat to make it internally consistent
      and keep the relationship to RFC 3986 clear.

F.5.  Changes from -12 to -13

   o  More precisely defined the semantics of the optional components.

   o  Defined the term "resolution" and clarified several related
      matters throughout the text.

   o  Clarified terminological relationship to RFC 3986.




Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 36]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


   o  Further cleansed the document of p-components.

   o  Corrected several examples to avoid confusion with existing
      identifier systems.

   o  Improved text regarding the purpose of namespaces being
      registered.

F.6.  Changes from -13 to -14

   o  Reverted the ABNF to what had been defined in version -12.

   o  Added fast-track approval process for standards-related
      organizations, scientific societies, and similar bodies (similar
      to RFC 6838 for Media Types).

F.7.  Changes from -14 to -15

   o  Reorganized the Introduction slightly, adding new subsection 1.1
      and making Terminology (the former Section 2) Section 1.2.

   o  Tightened the discussion of "resolution" somewhat to try to
      mitigate some on-list confusion.

   o  Added some text about character set choices and repertoires
      (consistent with the Section 1.1 explanation).

   o  Moved away from "?" and "??" for q-component and r-component
      delimiters and went to two-character sequences for each.  This
      includes several changes to the text to remove or modify
      discussions of string termination and the role of a question mark
      not followed by one of the new delimiters.

   o  Redefined r-component to be an ASCII resolver ID and a string.
      Neither is further defined in this specification and text has been
      added to say that.

   o  Several editorial changes to improve clarity, most following up on
      comments made on the list.  These included modifying the table of
      contents so that the subsections on optional components now appear
      there.

F.8.  Changes from -15 (2016-02-04) to -16

   o  Rewrote the introductory material to make the relationship to
      other specifications more clear and allow removing or altering
      text that was stated in terms of changes from 2141.  The




Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 37]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


      specification is now self-contained with regard to the earlier
      definitions and descriptions of URNs.

   o  Removed the parts of Section 2 that were really a description of
      changes from RFC 2141 to Appendix B, where such changes are
      enumerated.  Similarly, removed most material describing changes
      from RFC 3406 to Appendix C.

   o  Replaced one example.

   o  Rearranged and rewrote text to improve clarity and relationships
      to other documents and to reduce redundant material.

   o  Made it more clear that r-components, despite the partial syntax
      specification, are reserved for future standardization.

   o  Clarified that there can be URNs that neither resolve to URLs nor
      are abstract designators.

   o  Added pointers to make it clear that the Syntax material in
      Section 2 is not self-contained, e.g., that its subsections and
      other sections further restrict strings that can be used for NIDs
      and so on.

   o  Added an "Additional Information" section to the registration
      template.  See list discussion on and about 2016-03-18.

   o  Minor editorial/ typographic fixes (per comment from Lars).

F.9.  Changes from -16 (2016-04-16) to -17

   o  Clarified material about copying q-components, including adding an
      example.

   o  Modified the document in several places to try to respond to
      concerns about the unqualified use of the term "equivalence".  The
      term has been eliminated in one or two places and changed to "URN
      equivalence" in situations in which the scheme is known and URN-
      specific rules are being applied.

   o  Editorial and typographic fixes.

   o  Temporarily (this version only) added [[CREF...]] placeholders to
      identify outstanding issues that might usefully be discussed
      during the 2016-06-29 virtual meeting but that must be resolved in
      some way for the document to move forward.





Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 38]


Internet-Draft                    URNs                         June 2016


Authors' Addresses

   Peter Saint-Andre
   Filament

   Email: peter@filament.com
   URI:   https://filament.com/


   John C Klensin
   1770 Massachusetts Ave, Ste 322
   Cambridge, MA  02140
   USA

   Phone: +1 617 245 1457
   Email: john-ietf@jck.com



































Saint-Andre & Klensin   Expires December 29, 2016              [Page 39]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/