RE: IANA considerations update for NETCONF protocol draft

["Rob Enns" <rpe@juniper.net>]

> XML sloppily addresses this problem (in dozens of W3C, OASIS, and
other
> specs) by saying just use an enterprise URI (with the durability
problem 
> that Randy complains about).

Sloppy but workable. Just about sums up XML, doesn't it? :-)

> But this is not rocket science.  The NetConf spec should say that
> Enterprise Capabilities MUST be prefixed by a durable URN (not simply
> a URI) and are not going to be IANA registered.  End of problem.

How does one determine URN durability? Avoidance of DNS names for one
thing.
Is this term well known? (Googling "durable urn" leads down the wrong
path)

> And I suggest that you further specify that Enterprise Capabilities
> SHOULD use the UUID URN Namespace (RFC 4122, July 2005).

This is cool, but for capability URIs does NETCONF require
this level of rigor? If an enterprise wants to add a capability to it's
product, an enterprise URI should be sufficient.

Rob

--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>