One document matched: draft-saintandre-urn-example-02.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc strict="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="1"?>
<rfc category="info" docName="draft-saintandre-urn-example-02" ipr="trust200902">
  <front>
    <title abbrev="Example URNs">A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Examples</title>
    <author initials="P." surname="Saint-Andre" fullname="Peter Saint-Andre">
      <organization>Cisco Systems, Inc.</organization>
      <address>
        <postal>
          <street>1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 600</street>
          <city>Denver</city>
          <region>CO</region>
          <code>80202</code>
          <country>USA</country>
        </postal>
        <email>psaintan@cisco.com</email>
      </address>
    </author>
    <date month="February" day="13" year="2013"/>
    <area>APP</area>
    <keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
    <keyword>URN</keyword>
    <abstract>
      <t>This document defines a Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace identifier enabling generation of URNs that are appropriate for use in documentation, private testing, and the like.</t>
    </abstract>
  </front>
  <middle>
    <section title="Introduction" anchor="intro">
      <t>The Uniform Resource Name (URN) technology <xref target='RFC2141'/> provides a way to generate persistent, location-independent, resource identifiers.  The primary "scope" of a URN is provided by its namespace identifier (NID) <xref target='RFC3406'/>.  There are three kinds of NID: formal, informal, and experimental.  Most of the NIDs registered to date are formal: as far as is known the few informal namespaces have not been widely used, and the experimental namespaces are by definition unregistered.</t> 
      <t>The experimental namespaces take the form "X-NID" (where "NID" is the desired namespace identifier).  Because the "x-" convention has been deprecated in general <xref target='RFC6648'/>, it seems sensible to achieve the same objective in a different way.  Therefore this document registers a formal namespace identifier of "example", similar to "example.com" and other domain names <xref target='RFC2606'/>.  Under the "example" NID, specification authors and code developers can mint URNs for use in documentation and private testing by assigning their own unique namespace-specific strings.</t>
    </section>
    <section title="Specification Template" anchor="template">
      <section title="Namespace ID" anchor="template-nid">
        <t>The Namespace ID "example" is requested.</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Registration Information" anchor="template-reginfo">
        <t>Version 1</t>
        <t>Date: [to be assigned]</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Declared Registrant of the Namespace" anchor="template-registrant">
        <t>Registering organization: IETF</t>
        <t>Designated contact: IESG, iesg@ietf.org</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Declaration of Syntactic Structure" anchor="template-syntax">
        <t>The Namespace Specific String (NSS) of all URNs that use the "example" NID shall have the following structure:</t>
        <t>urn:example:{NSS}</t>
        <t>The NSS is a mandatory string of ASCII characters <xref target='RFC20'/> that conforms to the URN syntax requirements <xref target='RFC2141'/> and that provides a name that is useful within the relevant documentation example, test suite, or other application.</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Relevant Ancillary Documentation" anchor="template-ancillary">
        <t>See <xref target='RFC6648'/> for information about deprecation of the "x-" convention in protocol parameters and identifiers.</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Identifier Uniqueness Considerations" anchor="template-unique">
        <t>Those who mint example URNs ought to strive for uniqueness in the namespace specific string portion of the URN.  However, such uniqueness cannot be guaranteed through the assignment process.  As a result, implementers are counselled against using example URNs for any purposes other than documentation, private testing, and truly experimental contexts.</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Identifier Persistence Considerations" anchor="template-persist">
        <t>Once minted, an example URN is immutable.  However, it is simply a string and there is no guarantee that the documentation, test suite, or other application using the URN is immutable.</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Process for Identifier Resolution" anchor="template-resolution">
        <t>Example URNs are not intended to be resolved, and the namespace will probably never be registered with a Resolution Discovery System (unless to simply inform requesters that such URNs are merely examples).</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Rules for Lexical Equivalence" anchor="template-foobar">
        <t>No special considerations; the rules for lexical equivalence specified in <xref target='RFC2141'/> apply.</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Conformance with URN Syntax" anchor="template-conformance">
        <t>No special considerations</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Validation Mechanism" anchor="template-validation">
        <t>None</t>
      </section>
      <section title="Scope" anchor="template-scope">
        <t>Global</t>
      </section>
    </section>
    <section title="Namespace Considerations" anchor="namespace">
      <t>No existing formal namespace enables entities to generate URNs that are appropriate for use as examples in documentation, in private testing, and the like.  It could be argued that no such formal namespace is needed, given that experimental namespaces can be minted at will.  However, experimental namespaces run afoul of the trend away from using the "x-" convention in the names of protocol parameters and identifiers <xref target='RFC6648'/>.  Additionally, in practice specification authors often mint examples using fake NIDs that go unregistered because they are never intended to be used; to minimize the possibility of confusion, it seems preferable to create a dedicated namespace that can be used to generate example URNs.</t>
    </section>
    <section title="Community Considerations" anchor="community">
      <t>The "example" NID is intended to provide a clean, easily-recognizable space for minting examples to be used in documentation, in private testing, and the like.  The Namespace Specific String (NSS) needs to be a unique string, generated by the person, organization, or other entity that creates the documentation, test suite, or other application.  There is no issuing authority for example URNs and they cannot be resolved in any meaningful way.</t>
      <t>The example NID does not obviate the need to coordinate with issuing authorities for existing namespaces (e.g., minting "urn:example:xmpp:foo" instead of requesting issuance of "urn:xmpp:foo"), to register new namespace identifiers if existing namespaces do not match one's desired functionality (e.g., minting "urn:example:sha-1:29ead03e784b2f636a23ffff95ed12b56e2f2637" instead of registering the "sha-1" NID), or to respect the basic spirit of URN NID assignment (e.g., setting up shadow NIDs such as "urn:example:MyCompany:*" instead of using, say, HTTP URIs).</t>
    </section>
    <section title="Security Considerations" anchor="security">
      <t>This document introduces no additional security considerations beyond those associated with the use and resolution of URNs in general.</t>
    </section>
    <section title="IANA Considerations" anchor="iana">
      <t>This document defines a URN NID registration of "example", to be added to the formal namespace registration; the completed registration template can be found under <xref target='template'/>.</t>
    </section>
  </middle>
  <back>
    <references title="Normative References">
<reference anchor='RFC20'>
<front>
<title>ASCII format for network interchange</title>
<author initials='V.' surname='Cerf' fullname='Vint Cerf'>
<organization>University California Los Angeles (UCLA)</organization></author>
<date year='1969' day='16' month='October' />
<abstract>
<t>For concreteness, we suggest the use of standard 7-bit ASCII embedded in an 8 bit byte whose high order bit is always 0.</t></abstract></front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='20' />
<format type='TXT' octets='18504' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc20.txt' />
</reference>
<reference anchor='RFC2141'>
<front>
<title>URN Syntax</title>
<author initials='R.' surname='Moats' fullname='Ryan Moats'>
<organization>AT&T</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>15621 Drexel Circle</street>
<street>Omaha</street>
<street>NE 68135-2358</street>
<country>USA</country></postal>
<phone>+1 402 894-9456</phone>
<email>jayhawk@ds.internic.net</email></address></author>
<date year='1997' month='May' />
<area>Applications</area>
<keyword>URN</keyword>
<keyword>uniform resource</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>
   Uniform Resource Names (URNs) are intended to serve as persistent,
   location-independent, resource identifiers. This document sets
   forward the canonical syntax for URNs.  A discussion of both existing
   legacy and new namespaces and requirements for URN presentation and
   transmission are presented.  Finally, there is a discussion of URN
   equivalence and how to determine it.
</t></abstract></front>
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='2141' />
<format type='TXT' octets='14077' target='ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2141.txt' />
<format type='HTML' octets='30670' target='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2141.html' />
<format type='XML' octets='17551' target='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/xml/rfc2141.xml' />
</reference>
<reference anchor='RFC3406'>
<front>
<title>Uniform Resource Names (URN) Namespace Definition Mechanisms</title>
<author initials='L.' surname='Daigle' fullname='L. Daigle'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='D.' surname='van Gulik' fullname='D. van Gulik'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='R.' surname='Iannella' fullname='R. Iannella'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='P.' surname='Faltstrom' fullname='P. Faltstrom'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2002' month='October' />
<abstract>
<t><p>This document lays out general definitions of and mechanisms for establishing Uniform Resource Names (URN) "namespaces". The URN WG has defined a syntax for URNs in RFC 2141, as well as some proposed mechanisms for their resolution and use in Internet applications in RFC 3401 and RFC 3405. The whole rests on the concept of individual "namespaces" within the URN structure. Apart from proof-of-concept namespaces, the use of existing identifiers in URNs has been discussed in RFC 2288. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. </p></t></abstract></front>
<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='66' />
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='3406' />
<format type='TXT' octets='43707' target='ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc3406.txt' />
</reference>
<reference anchor='RFC6648'>
<front>
<title>Deprecating the "X-" Prefix and Similar Constructs in Application Protocols</title>
<author initials='P.' surname='Saint-Andre' fullname='P. Saint-Andre'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='D.' surname='Crocker' fullname='D. Crocker'>
<organization /></author>
<author initials='M.' surname='Nottingham' fullname='M. Nottingham'>
<organization /></author>
<date year='2012' month='June' />
<abstract>
<t>Historically, designers and implementers of application protocols have often distinguished between standardized and unstandardized parameters by prefixing the names of unstandardized parameters with the string "X-" or similar constructs.  In practice, that convention causes more problems than it solves.  Therefore, this document deprecates the convention for newly defined parameters with textual (as opposed to numerical) names in application protocols.  This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.</t></abstract></front>
<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='178' />
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='6648' />
<format type='TXT' octets='28393' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6648.txt' />
</reference>
    </references>
    <references title="Informative References">
<reference anchor='RFC2606'>
<front>
<title>Reserved Top Level DNS Names</title>
<author initials='D.E.' surname='Eastlake' fullname='Donald E. Eastlake 3rd'>
<organization>IBM</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>65 Shindegan Hill Road</street>
<street>RR #1</street>
<city>Carmel</city>
<region>NY</region>
<code>10512</code>
<country>US</country></postal>
<phone>+1 914 276 1668</phone>
<facsimile>+1 914 784 3833</facsimile>
<email>dee3@us.ibm.com</email></address></author>
<author initials='A.' surname='Panitz' fullname='Aliza R. Panitz'>
<organization />
<address>
<postal>
<street>500 Stamford Dr. No. 310</street>
<city>Newark</city>
<region>DE</region>
<code>19711</code>
<country>US</country></postal>
<phone>+1 302 738 1554</phone>
<email>buglady@fuschia.net</email></address></author>
<date year='1999' month='June' />
<abstract>
<t>To reduce the likelihood of conflict and confusion, a few top level domain names are reserved for use in private testing, as examples in documentation, and the like.  In addition, a few second level domain names reserved for use as examples are documented.</t></abstract></front>
<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='32' />
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='2606' />
<format type='TXT' octets='8008' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2606.txt' />
</reference>
    </references>

    <section title="Acknowledgements" anchor="acks">
      <t>Thanks to Martin Duerst and Jim Schaad for their feedback.</t>
    </section>

  </back>
</rfc>