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

Versions: (RFC 3406) 00 draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg

URNBIS                                               P. Saint-Andre, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Obsoletes: 3406 (if approved)                                  L. Daigle
Intended status: BCP                                        D. van Gulik
Expires: May 14, 2013                                        R. Iannella
                                                            P. Faltstrom
                                                       November 10, 2012


           Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace Definitions
                   draft-saintandre-urnbis-3406bis-00

Abstract

   This document supplements the Uniform Resource Name (URN) syntax
   specification by defining the concept of a URN namespace, as well as
   mechanisms for defining and registering such namespaces.  This
   document obsoletes 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 May 14, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   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



Saint-Andre, et al.       Expires May 14, 2013                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft               URN Namespaces                November 2012


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Discussion Venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  What is a URN Namespace? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   5.  URN Namespace Types  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.1.  Formal Namespaces  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     5.2.  Informal Namespaces  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Defining a URN Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     6.1.  Formal Namespaces  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       6.1.1.  Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       6.1.2.  Specification  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     6.2.  Informal Namespaces  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   7.  Registering a URN Namespace  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     7.1.  Formal Namespaces  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     7.2.  Informal Namespaces  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   8.  URN Namespace Definition Template  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   9.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   10. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Appendix A.  Changes from RFC 3406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15






















Saint-Andre, et al.       Expires May 14, 2013                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft               URN Namespaces                November 2012


1.  Introduction

   A Uniform Resource Name (URN) is a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
   that is intended to serve as a persistent, location-independent
   resource identifier.  The general class of URNs is differentiated
   from all other URIs through the use of the 'urn' URI scheme.

   This document supplements the Uniform Resource Name (URN) syntax
   specification by defining (1) the concept of a URN namespace, (2) a
   mechanism for defining such namespaces and associating each namespace
   with a public identifier (called a Namespace ID or "NID"), and (3)
   procedures for registering such namespaces with the Internet Assigned
   Numbers Authority (IANA).

   This document rests on two key assumptions:

   1.  Assignment of a URN is a managed process.

       A string that conforms to the URN syntax is not necessarily a
       valid URN, because a URN needs to be assigned according to the
       rules of a particular namespace (in terms of syntax, semantics,
       and process).

   2.  The space of URN namespaces is itself managed.

       A string in the namespace identifier slot of the URN syntax is
       not necessarily a valid URN namespace identifier, because in
       order to be valid a namespace needs to be defined and registered
       in accordance with the rules of this document.

   URN namespaces were originally defined in [RFC2611], which was
   obsoleted by [RFC3406].  Based on experience with defining and
   registering URN namespaces since that time, the goal of this document
   is to specify URN namespaces with the smallest reasonable set of
   changes from [RFC3406].

   Although on the surface it might appear that this document is
   significantly different from [RFC3406], in general it only modifies
   the order of presentation, with the intent of making it easier for
   people to define and register URN namespaces.  However, the only
   major substantive change is removing the category of experimental
   namespaces, in accorance with [RFC6648].

   If approved, this document will obsolete RFC 3406.







Saint-Andre, et al.       Expires May 14, 2013                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft               URN Namespaces                November 2012


2.  Discussion Venue

   The discussion venue for this document is mailing list of the URNBIS
   WG; visit <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn> for
   subscription and archive information.


3.  Terminology

   Several important terms used in this document are defined in the URN
   syntax specification [I-D.saintandre-urnbis-2141bis].

   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].


4.  What is a URN Namespace?

   For the purposes of URNs, a "namespace" is a collection of unique
   identifiers that are consistently assigned according to a common
   definition.

   The uniqueness constraint means that an identifier within the
   namespace is never assigned to more than one resource and never re-
   assigned to a different resource (however, a single resource can have
   more than one URN assigned to it for different purposes).

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

   The common definition constraint means that the syntax for
   identifiers within the namespace and the process for assigning such
   identifiers are clearly defined in a specification.

   A URN namespace is identified by a particular designator (which
   syntactically follows the 'urn' scheme name) in order to:

   o  Ensure the global uniqueness of URNs.
   o  Optionally provide a cue regarding the structure of URNs assigned
      within a namespace.

   With regard to global uniqueness, using different designators 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).  For instance, some identifier



Saint-Andre, et al.       Expires May 14, 2013                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft               URN Namespaces                November 2012


   systems use strings of numbers as identifiers (e.g., ISBN, ISSN,
   phone numbers).  It is conceivable that there might be some numbers
   that are valid identifiers in two different established identifier
   systems, and the namespace identifier differentiates between the
   resulting URNs.

   With regard to the structure of URNs assigned within a namespace, the
   development of an identifier structure, and thereby a collection of
   identifiers, is a process that is inherently dependent on the
   requirements of the community defining the identifier, how they will
   be assigned, and the uses to which they will be put.  All of these
   issues are specific to the individual community seeking to define a
   namespace (e.g., a publishing community, an association of
   booksellers, developers of particular application protocols, etc.);
   therefore these issues are beyond the scope of URN syntax and the
   rules regarding URN namespaces in general.

   URN namespaces inherit certain rights and responsibilities,
   including:

   o  They uphold the general principles of a well-managed URN namespace
      by providing persistent identification of resources and unique
      assignment of identifier strings.
   o  They can be registered in global registration services.


5.  URN Namespace Types

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

   Note: [RFC3406] defined a third type of "experimental namespaces:,
   denoted by prefixing the namespace identifier with the string "X-".
   Consistent with [RFC6648], this specification removes the
   experimental category.

5.1.  Formal Namespaces

   A formal namespace can be requested, and IETF review sought, in cases
   where the publication of the NID proposal and the underlying
   namespace will provide benefit to some subset of users on the
   Internet.  That is, a formal NID proposal, if accepted, needs to be
   functional on and with the global Internet, not limited to users in
   communities or networks not connected to the Internet.  For example,



Saint-Andre, et al.       Expires May 14, 2013                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft               URN Namespaces                November 2012


   consider a NID that is meant for naming of physics research; if that
   NID request required that the user use a proprietary network or
   service that was not at all open to the general Internet user, then
   it would make a poor request for a formal NID.  The intent is that,
   while the community of those who may actively use the names assigned
   within that NID may be small (but no less important), the potential
   use of names within that NID is open to any user on the Internet.

   It is expected that formal NIDs may be applied to namespaces where
   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 may still provide
   benefit to some Internet users if the services associated have
   openly- published access protocols.

   In addition to the basic information specified in the namespace
   definition template (see Section 8), a formal namespace request needs
   to be accompanied by documented considerations of the need for a new
   namespace and of the community benefit from formally establishing the
   proposed URN namespace.

   Additionally, since the goal of URNs is to provide persistent
   identification, a formal namespace request needs to give some
   consideration as to the longevity and maintainability of the
   namespace.  Possible factors to consider with regard to an
   organization that will assign URNs within a namespace include the
   following:

   o  It ought to demonstrate 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.
   o  It ought to demonstrate competency in name assignment.  This will
      improve the likelihood of persistence (e.g. to minimize the
      likelihood of conflicts);
   o  It ought to commit to not re-assigning existing names and to
      allowing old names to continue to be valid, even if the owners or
      assignees of those names are no longer members or customers of
      that organization.  With regard to URN resolution, this does not
      mean that there needs to be resolution of such names, only that
      the names will not resolve to false or stale information.

5.2.  Informal Namespaces

   Informal namespaces are full-fledged URN namespaces, with all the
   rights and responsibilities associated thereto.  Informal namespaces
   differ from formal namespaces in the process for assigning a NID:
   IANA will assign an alphanumeric NID (e.g., "urn-7") to informal



Saint-Andre, et al.       Expires May 14, 2013                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft               URN Namespaces                November 2012


   namespaces, per the process outlined under Section 7.


6.  Defining a URN Namespace

   A URN namespace is defined by the following factors:

   o  The syntax of URNs assigned within the namespace, in conformance
      with the fundamental URN syntax [I-D.saintandre-urnbis-2141bis].
   o  The process for assigning URNs within the namespace.
   o  Optionally, the process for resolving URNs issued within the
      namepace.

   Processes for resolution of URNs assigned within a namespace (if any)
   are out of scope for this document.  The following sections provide
   guidelines for (1) defining the syntax of URNs within a namespace and
   (2) specifying how URNs will be assigned within a namespace.

6.1.  Formal Namespaces

   Formal NIDs are assigned as a result of IETF Consensus as defined in
   the "IANA Considerations" document [RFC5226].  Thus an application
   for a formal NID is made by publishing an RFC through normal IETF
   processes.  The RFC need not be standards track (indeed, to date most
   RFCs registering URN namespaces have been informational), but it will
   be subject to IESG review and acceptance pursuant to the guidelines
   written here (as well as standard RFC publication guidelines).

6.1.1.  Syntax

   A formal namespace registration requests a particular NID, subject to
   the following constraints:

   o  It MUST NOT be an already-registered NID.
   o  It MUST NOT start with "urn-" (which is reserved for informal
      namespaces).
   o  It MUST be more than 2 letters long.
   o  It MUST NOT start with "XY-", where XY is any combination of two
      ASCII letters.

   All two-letter combinations, and all two-letter combinations followed
   by "-" and any sequence of valid NID characters, are reserved for
   potential use as countrycode-based NIDs for eventual national
   registrations of URN namespaces.  The definition and scoping of rules
   for allocation of responsibility for such countrycode-based
   namespaces is beyond the scope of this document.





Saint-Andre, et al.       Expires May 14, 2013                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft               URN Namespaces                November 2012


6.1.2.  Specification

   The specification defining a formal namespace MUST include a
   completed namespace definition template (see Section 8).

   The specification also MUST include the following sections.

   The "Namespace Considerations" section outlines the perceived need
   for a new namespace (i.e., where existing namespaces fall short of
   the proposer's requirements).  Potential considerations include:

   o  Procedures for assigning URNs within this namespace
   o  Processes for resolving URNs assigned within this namespace, if
      any
   o  The type of resources to be identified
   o  The type of services to be supported

   It is expected that more than one namespace may serve the same
   "functional" purpose; the intent of the "Namespace Considerations"
   section is to provide a record of the proposer's "due diligence" in
   exploring existing possibilities, for the IESG's consideration.

   The "Community Considerations" section explains how the intended
   community will benefit by publication of this namespace as well as
   how a general Internet user will be able to use the space if they
   care to do so.  Potential considerations include:

   o  Open assignment and use of identifiers within the namespace
   o  Open operation of resolution servers for the namespace (server)
   o  Creation of software that can meaningfully resolve and access
      services for the namespace (client)

   The "IANA Considerations" section indicating that the document
   includes a URN NID registration that is to be entered into the IANA
   registry of URN NIDs.

6.2.  Informal Namespaces

   Informal namespaces are directly requested of IANA.

   The namespace identifier assigned by IANA is a number sequence in the
   format:

       "urn-" <number>

   where <number> is chosen by the IANA on a First Come First Served
   basis as specified in the "IANA Considerations" deocument [RFC5226].




Saint-Andre, et al.       Expires May 14, 2013                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft               URN Namespaces                November 2012


   The only restrictions on <number> are (1) that it consist strictly of
   digits and (2) that it not cause the NID to exceed the length
   limitations defined in the URN syntax specification
   [I-D.saintandre-urnbis-2141bis].


7.  Registering a URN Namespace

7.1.  Formal Namespaces

   The key steps for registration of a formal namespace are:

   1.  Write an Internet-Draft that includes all of the information
       described under Section FIXME.
   2.  Send the completed namespace definition template to the
       urn-nid@ietf.org discussion list for technical review.
   3.  Update the Internet-Draft as needed to address feedback, and
       repeat steps 2 and 3 as needed.
   4.  Based on comments received, update the Internet-Draft and repeat
       steps 2 and 3 as necessary.
   5.  Send a request to the IESG to publish the I-D as an RFC.  The
       IESG may request further changes (published as I-D revisions)
       and/or direct discussion to designated working groups, area
       experts, etc.
   6.  If the IESG approves the document for publication as an RFC, send
       a request to IANA to register the requested NID.

   A registration can be revised by updating the RFC through normal IETF
   processes [RFC2606].  The authors of the revised document need to
   follow the same steps outlined above for new registrations.

7.2.  Informal Namespaces

   The key steps for registration of an informal namespace are:

   1.  Complete the namespace definition template (see Section 8).  This
       can be done as part of an Internet-Draft.
   2.  Send the completed template to the urn-nid@ietf.org discussion
       list for technical review.
   3.  Based on comments received, update the template and repeat steps
       2 and 3 as necessary.
   4.  Once comments have been addressed and the review period has
       expired, send a registration request to IANA (via the
       iana@iana.org email address) with the final template.

   Informal namespaces can also be revised by updating the template and
   processing it as outlined above for new registrations.




Saint-Andre, et al.       Expires May 14, 2013                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft               URN Namespaces                November 2012


8.  URN Namespace Definition Template

   Definition of a URN namespace is accomplished by completing the
   following template.  Apart from providing a mechanism for defining
   the structure of URNs assigned within the namespace, this information
   is designed to be useful for:

   o  entities seeking to have a URN assigned in a namespace (if
      applicable)
   o  entities seeking to provide URN resolvers for a namespace (if
      applicable)

   This is particularly important for communities evaluating the
   possibility of using a portion of an existing URN namespace rather
   than creating their own.

   As described under Section 7.1, applications for formal URN
   namespaces MUST also document "Namespace Considerations", "Community
   Considerations" and "IANA Considerations".

   The information to be provided in the template is as follows:


     Namespace ID:

        Requested of IANA (formal) or assigned by IANA (informal).

     Registration Information:

        This is information to identify the particular version of
        registration information:

        -  registration version number: starting with 1,
           incrementing by 1 with each new version
        -  registration date: date submitted to the IANA, using the
           format YYYY-MM-DD

     Declared registrant of the namespace:
        This includes:
           Registering organization
              Name
              Address
           Designated contact person
              Name
              Coordinates (at least one of email address, phone
                           number, postal address)

     Declaration of syntactic structure:



Saint-Andre, et al.       Expires May 14, 2013                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft               URN Namespaces                November 2012


        This section ought to outline any structural features of
        identifiers in this namespace.  At the very least, this
        description may be used to introduce terminology used in
        other sections.  This structure may also be used for
        determining realistic caching/shortcuts approaches;
        suitable caveats ought to be provided.  If there are any
        specific character encoding rules (e.g., which character
        ought to always be used for single-quotes), these ought
        to be listed here.

        Answers might include, but are not limited to:

        -  the structure is opaque (no exposition)
        -  a regular expression for parsing the identifier into
           components, including naming authorities

     Relevant ancillary documentation:

        This section ought to list any RFCs, standards, or other
        published documentation that defines or explains all or
        part of the namespace structure.

        Answers might include, but are not limited to:

        -  RFCs outlining syntax of the namespace
        -  Other of the defining community's (e.g., ISO) documents
           outlining syntax of the identifiers in the namespace
        -  Explanatory material introducing the namespace

     Identifier uniqueness considerations:

        This section ought to address the requirement that URNs are
        assigned uniquely -- i.e., they are assigned to at most one
        resource, and are not reassigned.

        (Note that the definition of "resource" is fairly broad; for
        example, information on "Today's Weather" might be considered
        a single resource, although the content is dynamic.)

        Possible answers include, but are not limited to:

        -  exposition of the structure of the identifiers, and
           partitioning of the space of identifiers amongst assignment
           authorities which are individually responsible for
           respecting uniqueness rules
        -  identifiers are assigned sequentially
        -  information is withheld; the namespace is opaque




Saint-Andre, et al.       Expires May 14, 2013                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft               URN Namespaces                November 2012


     Identifier persistence considerations:

        Although non-reassignment of URN identifiers ensures that a URN
        will persist in identifying a particular resource even after
        the "lifetime of the resource", some consideration ought to be
        given to the persistence of the usability of the URN.  This is
        particularly important in the case of URN namespaces providing
        global resolution.

        Possible answers include, but are not limited to:

        -  quality of service considerations

     Process of identifier assignment:

        This section ought to detail the mechanisms and/or authorities
        for assigning URNs to resources.  It ought to make clear whether
        assignment is completely open, or if limited, how to become an
        assigner of identifiers, and/or get one assigned by existing
        assignment authorities.

        Answers could include, but are not limited to:

        -  assignment is completely open, following a particular
           algorithm
        -  assignment is delegated to authorities recognized by a
           particular organization (e.g., the Digital Object Identifier
           Foundation controls the DOI assignment space and its
           delegation)
        -  assignment is completely closed (e.g., for a private
           organization)

     Process for identifier resolution:

        If a namespace is intended to be accessible for global
        resolution, it needs to be registered in an RDS (Resolution
        Discovery System, see RFC 2276) such as DDDS.  Resolution
        then proceeds according to standard URI resolution processes,
        and the mechanisms of the RDS.  What this section ought to
        outline is the requirements for becoming a recognized resolver
        of URNs in this namespace (and being so- listed in the RDS
        registry).

        Answers may include, but are not limited to:

        -  the namespace is not listed with an RDS; therefore this
           section is not applicable
        -  resolution mirroring is completely open, with a mechanism



Saint-Andre, et al.       Expires May 14, 2013                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft               URN Namespaces                November 2012


           for updating an appropriate RDS
        -  resolution is controlled by entities to which assignment
           has been delegated

     Rules for Lexical Equivalence:

        If there are particular algorithms for determining equivalence
        between two identifiers in the underlying namespace (hence, in
        the URN string itself), rules can be provided here.

        Some examples include:

        -  equivalence between hyphenated and non-hyphenated groupings
           in the identifier string
        -  equivalence between single-quotes and double-quotes
        -  Namespace-defined equivalences between specific characters,
           such as "character X with or without diacritic marks".

        Note that these are not normative statements for any kind of
        best practice for handling equivalences between characters;
        they are statements limited to reflecting the namespace's
        own rules.

     Conformance with URN Syntax:

        This section ought to outline any special considerations
        required for conforming with the URN syntax.  This is
        particularly applicable in the case of legacy naming
        systems that are used in the context of URNs.

        For example, if a namespace is used in contexts other than URNs,
        it may make use of characters that are reserved in the URN
        syntax.

        This section ought to flag any such characters, and outline
        necessary mappings to conform to URN syntax.  Normally, this
        will be handled by hex encoding the symbol.

        For example, see the section on SICIs in RFC 2288.

     Validation mechanism:

        Apart from attempting resolution of a URN, a URN namespace may
        provide mechanisms for "validating" a URN -- i.e., determining
        whether a given string is currently a validly-assigned URN.
        There are two issues here: 1) users ought not "guess" URNs in
        a namespace; 2) when the URN namespace is based on an existing
        identifier system, it may not be the case that all the existing



Saint-Andre, et al.       Expires May 14, 2013                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft               URN Namespaces                November 2012


        identifiers are assigned on Day 0.  The reasonable expectation
        is that the resource associated with each resulting URN is
        somehow related to the thing identified by the original
        identifier system, but those resources may not exist for each
        original identifier.  For example, even if a URN namespace were
        defined based on telephone numbers, it is not clear that all
        telephone numbers would immediately become "valid" URNs, that
        could be resolved using whatever mechanisms are described as
        part of the namespace registration.

        Validation mechanisms might be:

        -  a syntax grammar
        -  an on-line service
        -  an off-line service

     Scope:

        This section ought to outline the scope of the use of the
        identifiers in this namespace.  Apart from considerations of
        private vs. public namespaces, this section is critical in
        evaluating the applicability of a requested NID.  For example,
        a namespace claiming to deal in "social security numbers"
        ought to have a global scope and address all social security
        number structures (unlikely).  On the other hand, at a national
        level, it is reasonable to propose a URN namespace for "this
        nation's social security numbers".


9.  Security Considerations

   This document largely focuses on providing mechanisms for the
   declaration of public information.  Nominally, these declarations
   will be of relatively low security profile, however there is always
   the danger of "spoofing" and providing mis-information.  Information
   in these declarations ought to be taken as advisory.


10.  IANA Considerations

   This document outlines the processes for registering URN namespaces,
   and has implications for the IANA in terms of registries to be
   maintained.  In all cases, the IANA ought to assign the appropriate
   NID (informal or formal), as described above, once an IESG-designated
   expert has confirmed that the requisite registration process steps
   have been completed.





Saint-Andre, et al.       Expires May 14, 2013                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft               URN Namespaces                November 2012


11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.saintandre-urnbis-2141bis]
              Saint-Andre, P. and R. Moats, "Uniform Resource Name (URN)
              Syntax", draft-saintandre-urnbis-2141bis-00 (work in
              progress), October 2012.

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

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

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2606]  Eastlake, D. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
              Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.

   [RFC2611]  Daigle, L., van Gulik, D., Iannella, R., and P. Faltstrom,
              "URN Namespace Definition Mechanisms", BCP 33, RFC 2611,
              June 1999.

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

   [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.


Appendix A.  Changes from RFC 3406

   Although on the surface it might appear that this document is
   significantly different from [RFC3406], in general it only modifies
   the order of presentation, with the intent of making it easier for
   people to define and register URN namespaces.  However, the only
   major substantive change is removing the category of experimental
   namespaces, in accorance with [RFC6648].









Saint-Andre, et al.       Expires May 14, 2013                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft               URN Namespaces                November 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Peter Saint-Andre (editor)
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 600
   Denver, CO  80202
   USA

   Phone: +1-303-308-3282
   Email: psaintan@cisco.com


   Leslie Daigle


   Dirk-Willem van Gulik


   Renato Iannella


   Patrick Faltstrom





























Saint-Andre, et al.       Expires May 14, 2013                 [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.122, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/