1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
Network Working Group Shirley Browne |
4 |
Internet-Draft Keith Moore |
5 |
Expires: 7 January 1996 University of Tennessee |
6 |
7 July 1995 |
7 |
|
8 |
|
9 |
Issues Concerning URN Assignment and Resolution |
10 |
|
11 |
draft-ietf-uri-urn-issues-00.txt |
12 |
|
13 |
Status of this Memo |
14 |
|
15 |
This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working |
16 |
documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and |
17 |
its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working |
18 |
documents as Internet-Drafts. |
19 |
|
20 |
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six |
21 |
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at |
22 |
any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference mate- |
23 |
rial or to cite them other than as "work in progress." |
24 |
|
25 |
To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the |
26 |
"1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow |
27 |
Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), |
28 |
munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or |
29 |
ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). |
30 |
|
31 |
Abstract |
32 |
|
33 |
A number of schemes have been proposed over the past year or so for |
34 |
assigning and resolving Uniform Resource Names (URNs) and for associat- |
35 |
ing meta-information with URNs. The Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) |
36 |
Working Group is currently faced with the task of evaluating these |
37 |
schemes. The schemes all claim to satisfy the functional requirements |
38 |
for URNs stated in RFC 1737. A number of additional issues that will be |
39 |
helpful to consider for purposes of evaluation are listed and discussed |
40 |
in this draft. Although this draft is long on questions and short on |
41 |
answers, it attempts to distill the issues on which consensus (even if |
42 |
it's agreement to disagree) needs to be reached before progress on stan- |
43 |
dardization can be made. |
44 |
|
45 |
|
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
|
50 |
|
51 |
|
52 |
|
53 |
|
54 |
Browne/Moore Expires 7 January 1996 [Page 1] |
55 |
|
56 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
|
59 |
|
60 |
|
61 |
|
62 |
|
63 |
URN Issues 7 July 1995 |
64 |
|
65 |
|
66 |
Contents |
67 |
|
68 |
|
69 |
1 Structure and control of the namespace |
70 |
1.1 Lifetime of a name |
71 |
1.2 Human meaningfulness of names |
72 |
1.3 Flat vs. hierarchical |
73 |
1.4 Name assignment and ownership |
74 |
2 Name resolution issues |
75 |
2.1 Responsibility for name resolution |
76 |
2.2 Efficiency |
77 |
2.3 Resolver location |
78 |
2.4 Use of existing Domain Name System |
79 |
3 Meta-information issues |
80 |
3.1 What to include and how to structure it |
81 |
3.2 Responsibility and write permission |
82 |
3.3 Search capabilities |
83 |
3.4 Consistency requirements |
84 |
4 Support for resource replication |
85 |
4.1 Consistency requirements |
86 |
4.2 Existing mirroring programs |
87 |
4.3 Copyright issues |
88 |
5 Level of standardization |
89 |
6 Satisfaction of existing naming needs |
90 |
7 Copyright and licensing issues |
91 |
8 Author's address |
92 |
|
93 |
|
94 |
1 Structure and control of the namespace |
95 |
|
96 |
1.1 Lifetime of a name |
97 |
|
98 |
RFC 1737 states that URNs are to be "persistent" identifiers for |
99 |
resources. But there are several kinds of persistence: |
100 |
|
101 |
One kind of persistence is the lifetime of the binding between a |
102 |
URN and the resource it describes, independent of whether the resource |
103 |
can be accessed. It is generally understood that once a URN is assigned |
104 |
to a particular resource, that same URN should not be used to refer to a |
105 |
completely different resource. If possible, URNs should chosen in such |
106 |
a way as to ensure global lifetime uniqueness. |
107 |
|
108 |
Another kind of persistence is the lifetime of the meaning that a |
109 |
human will associate with the human-readable portions of a URN. The |
110 |
meanings of ordinary words, places, company names, names of countries, |
111 |
and even trademarks, change over time and due to unforseen circum- |
112 |
stances. This affects the persistence of URNs which contain such human- |
113 |
readable strings. If URNs are chosen to be somewhat meaningful to |
114 |
|
115 |
|
116 |
|
117 |
Browne/Moore Expires 7 January 1996 [Page 2] |
118 |
|
119 |
|
120 |
|
121 |
|
122 |
|
123 |
|
124 |
|
125 |
|
126 |
URN Issues 7 July 1995 |
127 |
|
128 |
|
129 |
humans (in addition to being resolvable by machines), the persistence of |
130 |
the meaning to humans may become an important design consideration. |
131 |
|
132 |
Just as the meaning of names changes for humans, the association of |
133 |
URN naming authorities (whether human readable or not) with their reso- |
134 |
lution services and/or access locations can also change. Even if a par- |
135 |
ticular naming authority is initially well-correlated with particular |
136 |
resolution or acesss services for URNs using that naming authority, this |
137 |
correlation may decrease over time. |
138 |
|
139 |
Finally, there is the lifetime for which resolution of URNs and |
140 |
access of the resources named by URNs are available and easily located. |
141 |
|
142 |
1.2 Human meaningfulness of names |
143 |
|
144 |
If names are human meaningful, then humans will have expectations |
145 |
that may be not be met and thus may lead to confusion and misinforma- |
146 |
tion. On the other hand, opaque resource names would prevent humans |
147 |
from using their intiution to "resolve" them. |
148 |
|
149 |
1.3 Flat vs. hierarchical |
150 |
|
151 |
All the proposed schemes seem to have agreed on at least a two- |
152 |
level hierarchy for the namespace, consisting of a division by naming |
153 |
authority, followed by a division by a string assigned by a particular |
154 |
naming authority. The flat vs. hierarchical issue has two aspects: |
155 |
|
156 |
- the structure used for name assignment |
157 |
|
158 |
- the structure used for name resolution |
159 |
|
160 |
It would be possible for the namespace to be flat for either pur- |
161 |
pose but hierarchical for the other. Arguments have been put forth that |
162 |
a flat namespace does not scale for either purpose. |
163 |
|
164 |
Note that the use of a hierarchy for name resolution does not |
165 |
require that the hierarchy be either visible in the name or permanently |
166 |
fixed once names are assigned. |
167 |
|
168 |
1.4 Name assignment and ownership |
169 |
|
170 |
Who will be allowed to assign names - i.e., how easy will it be to |
171 |
establish oneself as a naming authority? |
172 |
|
173 |
2 Name resolution issues |
174 |
|
175 |
|
176 |
|
177 |
|
178 |
|
179 |
|
180 |
Browne/Moore Expires 7 January 1996 [Page 3] |
181 |
|
182 |
|
183 |
|
184 |
|
185 |
|
186 |
|
187 |
|
188 |
|
189 |
URN Issues 7 July 1995 |
190 |
|
191 |
|
192 |
2.1 Responsibility for name resolution |
193 |
|
194 |
Should the naming authority that assigns a name be expected to pro- |
195 |
vide a service that resolves that name, and if so, for how long? If |
196 |
only for a limited time, how should the name be resolved after this |
197 |
limit expires? Could resolution be handled by third parties in addition |
198 |
to, or instead of, the service provided by the naming authority? |
199 |
|
200 |
2.2 Efficiency |
201 |
|
202 |
How much, if any, slower than current URL retrieval can URN resolu- |
203 |
tion be to still be acceptable? Is the answer for this question differ- |
204 |
ent for different users and/or different types of resources? |
205 |
|
206 |
2.3 Resolver location |
207 |
|
208 |
Must it be possible to locate a resolver for a name by doing a |
209 |
lookup based only on the name? In the case of hierarchical lookup, is |
210 |
it possible to not expose the resolution hierarchy as part of the name, |
211 |
so that the lookup hierarchy can change without changing the names? |
212 |
|
213 |
2.4 Use of existing Domain Name System |
214 |
|
215 |
It has been argued that a name resolution system could be more |
216 |
quickly and reliably implemented by building on top of the existing |
217 |
Domain Name System, than by building and deploying a new service. |
218 |
|
219 |
3 Meta-information issues |
220 |
|
221 |
3.1 What to include and how to structure it |
222 |
|
223 |
Should the URI group decide on a minimal set of attributes that are |
224 |
required to be included in a catalog record for each URN, or should it |
225 |
defer to outside groups to set such standards? Note that a number of |
226 |
standards and conventions already exist -- US MARC, the geospatial meta- |
227 |
data standard, and the BIDM for software reuse libraries. |
228 |
|
229 |
Some meta-information refers to the conceptual properties of a |
230 |
resource, some to the properties of a specific representation, and some |
231 |
to the properties of a specific location. The different categories tend |
232 |
to have different update frequency, consistency requirements, and write |
233 |
permissions. It would thus be desirable to be able to maintain each of |
234 |
these types of meta-information separately. |
235 |
|
236 |
3.2 Responsibility and permissions |
237 |
|
238 |
Should a naming authority be responsible for supplying meta- |
239 |
information for names it assigns, or might third parties do a better job |
240 |
|
241 |
|
242 |
|
243 |
Browne/Moore Expires 7 January 1996 [Page 4] |
244 |
|
245 |
|
246 |
|
247 |
|
248 |
|
249 |
|
250 |
|
251 |
|
252 |
URN Issues 7 July 1995 |
253 |
|
254 |
|
255 |
(e.g., the OCLC Internet cataloging project)? |
256 |
|
257 |
If meta-information is maintained under an IETF-sanctioned mecha- |
258 |
nism, should others besides the originating naming authority be allowed |
259 |
to contribute meta-information for resources they don't own? |
260 |
|
261 |
3.3 Search capabilities |
262 |
|
263 |
Should a meta information, or URC, service provide search capabili- |
264 |
ties? An alternative would be to permit bulk downloading of catalog |
265 |
records to third parties who could then provide search services, perhaps |
266 |
for a fee. |
267 |
|
268 |
3.4 Consistency requirements |
269 |
|
270 |
What are the consistency requirements for multiple copies of meta- |
271 |
information? |
272 |
|
273 |
4 Support for resource replication |
274 |
|
275 |
4.1 Consistency requirements |
276 |
|
277 |
What are the consistency requirements for multiple locations for a |
278 |
resource? |
279 |
|
280 |
4.2 Existing mirroring programs |
281 |
|
282 |
How can name-to-location resolution be merged with current mirror- |
283 |
ing protocols and programs? In particular, can the "pull model" used by |
284 |
most existing mirroring programs be supported effectively? |
285 |
|
286 |
4.3 Copyright issues |
287 |
|
288 |
What are the copyright issues involved in mirroring and caching |
289 |
resources outside the originating authority? |
290 |
|
291 |
5 Level of standardization |
292 |
|
293 |
It is desirable to allow a handful of name resolution schemes to |
294 |
co-exist initially so as to experimentally evaluate and compare them |
295 |
under real operating conditions. Is it possible to do this while pre- |
296 |
senting a fairly uniform interface to client programs? If multiple |
297 |
schemes are permitted to co-exist initially, one or perhaps a few will |
298 |
eventually win out. How might names assigned under defunct schemes be |
299 |
resolved by surviving schemes? |
300 |
|
301 |
|
302 |
|
303 |
|
304 |
|
305 |
|
306 |
Browne/Moore Expires 7 January 1996 [Page 5] |
307 |
|
308 |
|
309 |
|
310 |
|
311 |
|
312 |
|
313 |
|
314 |
|
315 |
URN Issues 7 July 1995 |
316 |
|
317 |
|
318 |
6 Satisfaction of existing naming needs |
319 |
|
320 |
There has been very little in the way of realistic case studies by |
321 |
the URI Working Group on how URNs will actually be used. A number of |
322 |
groups and projects, such as the Computer Science Technical Report |
323 |
(CSTR) project, the Reuse Library Interoperability Group (RIG), the OCLC |
324 |
Internet Cataloging Project, the National HPCC Software Exchange (NHSE), |
325 |
the distributed Problem Solving Environment (PSE) project at Purdue Uni- |
326 |
versity, and the WebWorks project at Syracuse University, have real nam- |
327 |
ing needs. It would be of value to obtain input from these groups on |
328 |
exactly how the need and plan to use globally unique names, and on what |
329 |
their performance and other requirements are. |
330 |
|
331 |
7 Copyright and licensing issues |
332 |
|
333 |
Do copyright and licensing issues need to be considered in the con- |
334 |
text of name resolution? |
335 |
|
336 |
8 Authors' addresses |
337 |
|
338 |
Shirley Browne (browne@cs.utk.edu) |
339 |
Keith Moore (moore@cs.utk.edu) |
340 |
University of Tennessee |
341 |
107 Ayres Hall |
342 |
Knoxville, TN 37996-1301 |
343 |
|
344 |
Tel: (615) 974-5886 |
345 |
Fax: (615) 974-8296 |
346 |
|
347 |
|
348 |
|
349 |
|
350 |
|
351 |
|
352 |
|
353 |
|
354 |
|
355 |
|
356 |
|
357 |
|
358 |
|
359 |
|
360 |
|
361 |
|
362 |
|
363 |
|
364 |
|
365 |
|
366 |
|
367 |
|
368 |
|
369 |
Browne/Moore Expires 7 January 1996 [Page 6] |