One document matched: draft-saintandre-urn-example-05.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="bcp" docName="draft-saintandre-urn-example-05" 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/>
<area>APP</area>
<keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
<keyword>URN</keyword>
<keyword>examples</keyword>
<keyword>documentation</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>This document defines a Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace identifier enabling generation of URNs that are appropriate for use in documentation and in URN-related testing and experimentation.</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). As specified in <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 in URN-related testing and experimentation by assigning their own unique namespace-specific strings, without fear of conflicts with current or future actual URNs. Such URNs are intended for use as examples in documentation, testing of code for URN and URI processing, URN-related experimentation, invalid URNs, and other similar uses. They are not intended for testing non-URI code or for building higher-level applications for use over the Internet or private networks (e.g., as XML namespace names), since it relatively easy to mint URIs whose authority component is a domain name controlled by the person or organization that wishes to engage in such testing and experimentation.</t>
</section>
<section title="Terminology" anchor="terms">
<t>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 <xref target='RFC2119'/>.</t>
</section>
<section title="Completed Namespace Definition 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>URNs that use the "example" NID shall have the following structure:</t>
<t>urn:example:{NSS}</t>
<t>The Namespace Specific String (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. Therefore it is NOT RECOMMENDED for implementers to use 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 of Identifier Assignment" anchor="template-assignment">
<t>Assignment is completely open, since anyone can mint example URNs for use in documentation, private testing, and other experimental contexts.</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>The scope of an example URN is limited to the documentation in which it is found, the test in which it is used, the experiment in which it appears, etc. Example URNs have no meaning outside such strictly-limited contexts.</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 and in URN-related testing and experimentation. 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, use of this dedicated example namespace is recommended for generating 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 and in URN-related testing and experimentation. The Namespace Specific String (NSS) is best as 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 it is not intended that they can 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 Uniform Resource Names (URN) Formal Namespaces registry. The completed registration template can be found in 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='RFC2119'>
<front>
<title abbrev='RFC Key Words'>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
<author initials='S.' surname='Bradner' fullname='Scott Bradner'>
<organization>Harvard University</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>1350 Mass. Ave.</street>
<street>Cambridge</street>
<street>MA 02138</street></postal>
<phone>- +1 617 495 3864</phone>
<email>sob@harvard.edu</email></address></author>
<date year='1997' month='March' />
<area>General</area>
<keyword>keyword</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>
In many standards track documents several words are used to signify
the requirements in the specification. These words are often
capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be
interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines
should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document:
<list>
<t>
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
RFC 2119.
</t></list></t>
<t>
Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement
level of the document in which they are used.
</t></abstract></front>
<seriesInfo name='BCP' value='14' />
<seriesInfo name='RFC' value='2119' />
<format type='TXT' octets='4723' target='http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt' />
<format type='HTML' octets='17970' target='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2119.html' />
<format type='XML' octets='5777' target='http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/xml/rfc2119.xml' />
</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>
</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>
<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>
<section title="Acknowledgements" anchor="acks">
<t>Thanks to Martin Duerst, Barry Leiba, and Jim Schaad for their feedback, to Christer Holmberg for his Gen-ART review, and to Benoit Claise, Adrian Farrel, and Stephen Farrell for their helpful input during IESG review. Julian Reschke inspired the work on this document, provided valuable suggestions, and shepherded the document.</t>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-24 04:05:21 |