[rfc-i] URN names for RFC authors; fragment identifiers another URI lawn to keep off

Larry Masinter masinter at adobe.com
Mon Apr 28 10:03:15 PDT 2014

(moved to apps-discuss, bcc to rfc-interest):

In an otherwise serious suggestion about the RFC editor maintaining
a list of RFC authors short-names and aliases, I added a postscript:

> If you really want an identifier, update RFC2648 to add:
 > urn:ietf:author:<ascii name>

to which Russ replied:
> I think it is an interesting idea to use a URN for RFC authors, but I do not think
> that the URN should be urn:ietf:author...  There are many RFCs that are not
> part of the IETF Stream.

But  urn:ietf:rfc:NNNN is already used for non-IETF-stream RFCs. Best think of the
"ietf" URN namespace as used for names the IETF uses, not just names IETF defines.


If fragment identifiers could vary by scheme (which I'm afraid is necessary), THEN
if URN fragments were allowed to be defined by their authority (which I think would make sense), THEN
IETF could decide to define:

as names i.e., the author could be a 'fragment' of abstraction of the (urn-named) RFC.

NOTE: Fragment Identifier space is another  URI lawn people should get off -- see


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list