Internet DRAFT - draft-saintandre-urn-example
draft-saintandre-urn-example
Network Working Group P. Saint-Andre
Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Best Current Practice April 19, 2013
Expires: October 21, 2013
A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Examples
draft-saintandre-urn-example-05
Abstract
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.
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 October 21, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 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
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
Saint-Andre Expires October 21, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Example URNs April 2013
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Completed Namespace Definition Template . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Namespace Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. Community Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Introduction
The Uniform Resource Name (URN) technology [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 [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.
The experimental namespaces take the form "X-NID" (where "NID" is the
desired namespace identifier). Because the "x-" convention has been
deprecated in general [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 [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.
2. Terminology
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].
Saint-Andre Expires October 21, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Example URNs April 2013
3. Completed Namespace Definition Template
3.1. Namespace ID
The Namespace ID "example" is requested.
3.2. Registration Information
Version 1
Date: [to be assigned]
3.3. Declared Registrant of the Namespace
Registering organization: IETF
Designated contact: IESG, iesg@ietf.org
3.4. Declaration of Syntactic Structure
URNs that use the "example" NID shall have the following structure:
urn:example:{NSS}
The Namespace Specific String (NSS) is a mandatory string of ASCII
characters [RFC20] that conforms to the URN syntax requirements
[RFC2141] and that provides a name that is useful within the relevant
documentation example, test suite, or other application.
3.5. Relevant Ancillary Documentation
See [RFC6648] for information about deprecation of the "x-"
convention in protocol parameters and identifiers.
3.6. Identifier Uniqueness Considerations
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.
Saint-Andre Expires October 21, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Example URNs April 2013
3.7. Identifier Persistence Considerations
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.
3.8. Process of Identifier Assignment
Assignment is completely open, since anyone can mint example URNs for
use in documentation, private testing, and other experimental
contexts.
3.9. Process for Identifier Resolution
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).
3.10. Rules for Lexical Equivalence
No special considerations; the rules for lexical equivalence
specified in [RFC2141] apply.
3.11. Conformance with URN Syntax
No special considerations
3.12. Validation Mechanism
None
3.13. Scope
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.
4. Namespace Considerations
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 [RFC6648]. Additionally, in practice
Saint-Andre Expires October 21, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Example URNs April 2013
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.
5. Community Considerations
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.
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).
6. Security Considerations
This document introduces no additional security considerations beyond
those associated with the use and resolution of URNs in general.
7. IANA Considerations
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 Section 3.
8. References
8.1. 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.
[RFC2141] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.
Saint-Andre Expires October 21, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Example URNs April 2013
[RFC3406] Daigle, L., van Gulik, D., Iannella, R., and P. Faltstrom,
"Uniform Resource Names (URN) Namespace Definition
Mechanisms", BCP 66, RFC 3406, October 2002.
8.2. Informative References
[RFC2606] Eastlake, D.E. and A. Panitz, "Reserved Top Level DNS
Names", BCP 32, RFC 2606, June 1999.
[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. Acknowledgements
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.
Author's Address
Peter Saint-Andre
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 600
Denver, CO 80202
USA
Email: psaintan@cisco.com
Saint-Andre Expires October 21, 2013 [Page 6]
