Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA

Randy Armstrong
Scheme name:

opc.tcp       :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over TCP/IP
opc.amqp  :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over AMQP
opc.wss      :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over WebSockets

We expect to add new schemes as time goes on.

Status:  permanent

Applications/protocols that use this scheme name:  

Applications which implement the OPC UA Connection Protocol defined by the OPC Unified Architecture specification:
https://opcfoundation.org/developer-tools/specifications-unified-architecture

The opc.tcp scheme has been in use in the field for about 10 years (we were unaware of the registration process).
Note that the OPC Foundation has a trademark on the term "OPC" (see US Trademark #78732560)

Contact:
Randy Armstrong
[hidden email]

Change controller:
OPC Foundation
https://opcfoundation.org/

References:  
The protocols and schemes are defined in Part 6: Mappings:
http://www.opcfoundation.org/UA/Part6/

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA

Graham Klyne-2
I have two objections here to permanent registration:

1. The specifications appear to be non-open "Note: Access to specifications and
developer resources are available to OPC Foundation members only."

2. The use of multiple URI schemes to access the same resource goes against
principles of web architecture [http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-aliases].

This topic has been discussed previously on this list: see thread at [1].

[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=uri-review&gbt=1&index=ze2I30iloSGZxlP2vAeCWcPOWus

#g
--



On 22/05/2017 22:04, Randy Armstrong wrote:

> Scheme name:
>
> opc.tcp       :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over TCP/IP
> opc.amqp  :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over AMQP
> opc.wss      :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over WebSockets
>
> We expect to add new schemes as time goes on.
>
> Status:  permanent
>
> Applications/protocols that use this scheme name:
>
> Applications which implement the OPC UA Connection Protocol defined by the OPC Unified Architecture specification:
> https://opcfoundation.org/developer-tools/specifications-unified-architecture
>
> The opc.tcp scheme has been in use in the field for about 10 years (we were unaware of the registration process).
> Note that the OPC Foundation has a trademark on the term "OPC" (see US Trademark #78732560)
>
> Contact:
> Randy Armstrong
> [hidden email]
>
> Change controller:
> OPC Foundation
> https://opcfoundation.org/
>
> References:
> The protocols and schemes are defined in Part 6: Mappings:
> http://www.opcfoundation.org/UA/Part6/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA

Randy Armstrong

1) We use the schemes for URLs that identify multiple network paths to a single resource which is identified with a URI that uses the 'urn' scheme. It is not clear to me that registration is required for this usage. Please advise.


2) The specs is an IEC specification as well (see https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/21993 ). In addition, the text quoted is old. Anyone can download the specifications from the OPC Foundation website today.














From: Graham Klyne <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 2:07:11 AM
To: Randy Armstrong; [hidden email]
Cc: TCB
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA
 
I have two objections here to permanent registration:

1. The specifications appear to be non-open "Note: Access to specifications and
developer resources are available to OPC Foundation members only."

2. The use of multiple URI schemes to access the same resource goes against
principles of web architecture [http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-aliases].

This topic has been discussed previously on this list: see thread at [1].

[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=uri-review&gbt=1&index=ze2I30iloSGZxlP2vAeCWcPOWus

#g
--



On 22/05/2017 22:04, Randy Armstrong wrote:
> Scheme name:
>
> opc.tcp       :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over TCP/IP
> opc.amqp  :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over AMQP
> opc.wss      :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over WebSockets
>
> We expect to add new schemes as time goes on.
>
> Status:  permanent
>
> Applications/protocols that use this scheme name:
>
> Applications which implement the OPC UA Connection Protocol defined by the OPC Unified Architecture specification:
> https://opcfoundation.org/developer-tools/specifications-unified-architecture
>
> The opc.tcp scheme has been in use in the field for about 10 years (we were unaware of the registration process).
> Note that the OPC Foundation has a trademark on the term "OPC" (see US Trademark #78732560)
>
> Contact:
> Randy Armstrong
> [hidden email]
>
> Change controller:
> OPC Foundation
> https://opcfoundation.org/
>
> References:
> The protocols and schemes are defined in Part 6: Mappings:
> http://www.opcfoundation.org/UA/Part6/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA

Ted Hardie-2
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:30 AM, Randy Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:

1) We use the schemes for URLs that identify multiple network paths to a single resource which is identified with a URI that uses the 'urn' scheme. It is not clear to me that registration is required for this usage. Please advise.


Would you mind identify which URN nid you are using?  I did not see one listed here:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml#urn-namespaces-1

that was obvious.

regards,

Ted

 

2) The specs is an IEC specification as well (see https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/21993 ). In addition, the text quoted is old. Anyone can download the specifications from the OPC Foundation website today.














From: Graham Klyne <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 2:07:11 AM
To: Randy Armstrong; [hidden email]
Cc: TCB
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA
 
I have two objections here to permanent registration:

1. The specifications appear to be non-open "Note: Access to specifications and
developer resources are available to OPC Foundation members only."

2. The use of multiple URI schemes to access the same resource goes against
principles of web architecture [http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-aliases].

This topic has been discussed previously on this list: see thread at [1].

[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=uri-review&gbt=1&index=ze2I30iloSGZxlP2vAeCWcPOWus

#g
--



On 22/05/2017 22:04, Randy Armstrong wrote:
> Scheme name:
>
> opc.tcp       :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over TCP/IP
> opc.amqp  :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over AMQP
> opc.wss      :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over WebSockets
>
> We expect to add new schemes as time goes on.
>
> Status:  permanent
>
> Applications/protocols that use this scheme name:
>
> Applications which implement the OPC UA Connection Protocol defined by the OPC Unified Architecture specification:
> https://opcfoundation.org/developer-tools/specifications-unified-architecture
>
> The opc.tcp scheme has been in use in the field for about 10 years (we were unaware of the registration process).
> Note that the OPC Foundation has a trademark on the term "OPC" (see US Trademark #78732560)
>
> Contact:
> Randy Armstrong
> [hidden email]
>
> Change controller:
> OPC Foundation
> https://opcfoundation.org/
>
> References:
> The protocols and schemes are defined in Part 6: Mappings:
> http://www.opcfoundation.org/UA/Part6/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review



_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA

Randy Armstrong

The URN conforms  to:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2141


Other than that the specification leaves it up to the implementer to choose something globally unique.

Implementers also have the option of using the http scheme as the application URI.


Is there a reason to register a URN scheme when we don't care about the content of the URN?


From: Ted Hardie <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 8:34:50 AM
To: Randy Armstrong
Cc: Graham Klyne; [hidden email]; TCB
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA
 
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:30 AM, Randy Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:

1) We use the schemes for URLs that identify multiple network paths to a single resource which is identified with a URI that uses the 'urn' scheme. It is not clear to me that registration is required for this usage. Please advise.


Would you mind identify which URN nid you are using?  I did not see one listed here:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml#urn-namespaces-1

that was obvious.

regards,

Ted

 

2) The specs is an IEC specification as well (see https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/21993 ). In addition, the text quoted is old. Anyone can download the specifications from the OPC Foundation website today.














From: Graham Klyne <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 2:07:11 AM
To: Randy Armstrong; [hidden email]
Cc: TCB
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA
 
I have two objections here to permanent registration:

1. The specifications appear to be non-open "Note: Access to specifications and
developer resources are available to OPC Foundation members only."

2. The use of multiple URI schemes to access the same resource goes against
principles of web architecture [http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-aliases].

This topic has been discussed previously on this list: see thread at [1].

[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=uri-review&gbt=1&index=ze2I30iloSGZxlP2vAeCWcPOWus

#g
--



On 22/05/2017 22:04, Randy Armstrong wrote:
> Scheme name:
>
> opc.tcp       :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over TCP/IP
> opc.amqp  :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over AMQP
> opc.wss      :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over WebSockets
>
> We expect to add new schemes as time goes on.
>
> Status:  permanent
>
> Applications/protocols that use this scheme name:
>
> Applications which implement the OPC UA Connection Protocol defined by the OPC Unified Architecture specification:
> https://opcfoundation.org/developer-tools/specifications-unified-architecture
>
> The opc.tcp scheme has been in use in the field for about 10 years (we were unaware of the registration process).
> Note that the OPC Foundation has a trademark on the term "OPC" (see US Trademark #78732560)
>
> Contact:
> Randy Armstrong
> [hidden email]
>
> Change controller:
> OPC Foundation
> https://opcfoundation.org/
>
> References:
> The protocols and schemes are defined in Part 6: Mappings:
> http://www.opcfoundation.org/UA/Part6/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review



_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA

Ted Hardie-2
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Randy Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:

The URN conforms  to:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2141


Other than that the specification leaves it up to the implementer to choose something globally unique.


RFC 3406, recently replaced by RFC 8141 go into the mechanics of URN registration.  Briefly, global uniqueness of the NID is maintained by a  global registry or URN namespace identifiers.

Implementers also have the option of using the http scheme as the application URI.

Is there a reason to register a URN scheme when we don't care about the content of the URN?



I understood your message below indicated that the URN was the canonical name for the resources, with the individual network paths being linked to that URN.  Did I get that wrong?

regards,

Ted

 
From: Ted Hardie <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 8:34:50 AM
To: Randy Armstrong
Cc: Graham Klyne; [hidden email]; TCB

Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA
 
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:30 AM, Randy Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:

1) We use the schemes for URLs that identify multiple network paths to a single resource which is identified with a URI that uses the 'urn' scheme. It is not clear to me that registration is required for this usage. Please advise.


Would you mind identify which URN nid you are using?  I did not see one listed here:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml#urn-namespaces-1

that was obvious.

regards,

Ted

 

2) The specs is an IEC specification as well (see https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/21993 ). In addition, the text quoted is old. Anyone can download the specifications from the OPC Foundation website today.














From: Graham Klyne <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 2:07:11 AM
To: Randy Armstrong; [hidden email]
Cc: TCB
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA
 
I have two objections here to permanent registration:

1. The specifications appear to be non-open "Note: Access to specifications and
developer resources are available to OPC Foundation members only."

2. The use of multiple URI schemes to access the same resource goes against
principles of web architecture [http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-aliases].

This topic has been discussed previously on this list: see thread at [1].

[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=uri-review&gbt=1&index=ze2I30iloSGZxlP2vAeCWcPOWus

#g
--



On 22/05/2017 22:04, Randy Armstrong wrote:
> Scheme name:
>
> opc.tcp       :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over TCP/IP
> opc.amqp  :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over AMQP
> opc.wss      :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over WebSockets
>
> We expect to add new schemes as time goes on.
>
> Status:  permanent
>
> Applications/protocols that use this scheme name:
>
> Applications which implement the OPC UA Connection Protocol defined by the OPC Unified Architecture specification:
> https://opcfoundation.org/developer-tools/specifications-unified-architecture
>
> The opc.tcp scheme has been in use in the field for about 10 years (we were unaware of the registration process).
> Note that the OPC Foundation has a trademark on the term "OPC" (see US Trademark #78732560)
>
> Contact:
> Randy Armstrong
> [hidden email]
>
> Change controller:
> OPC Foundation
> https://opcfoundation.org/
>
> References:
> The protocols and schemes are defined in Part 6: Mappings:
> http://www.opcfoundation.org/UA/Part6/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review




_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA

Randy Armstrong

The Application URI is the canonical identifier, however, it is simply an opaque string. There is nothing in OPC UA depends on the content of the value.  We simply use URI syntax because is a requirement for including the identifier in the subjectAltName of an x509 v3 certificate. 


At this point I would like to know what is the benefit of registering anything? It seems like the main risk is the potential for accidental conflict with other uses of the same scheme. However, we would run into the same issue if our application was turned down and we used any existing scheme such as 'http' (which is the recommendation). 


From: Ted Hardie <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 9:20:57 AM
To: Randy Armstrong
Cc: Graham Klyne; [hidden email]; TCB
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA
 
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Randy Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:

The URN conforms  to:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2141


Other than that the specification leaves it up to the implementer to choose something globally unique.


RFC 3406, recently replaced by RFC 8141 go into the mechanics of URN registration.  Briefly, global uniqueness of the NID is maintained by a  global registry or URN namespace identifiers.

Implementers also have the option of using the http scheme as the application URI.

Is there a reason to register a URN scheme when we don't care about the content of the URN?



I understood your message below indicated that the URN was the canonical name for the resources, with the individual network paths being linked to that URN.  Did I get that wrong?

regards,

Ted

 
From: Ted Hardie <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 8:34:50 AM
To: Randy Armstrong
Cc: Graham Klyne; [hidden email]; TCB

Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA
 
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:30 AM, Randy Armstrong <[hidden email]> wrote:

1) We use the schemes for URLs that identify multiple network paths to a single resource which is identified with a URI that uses the 'urn' scheme. It is not clear to me that registration is required for this usage. Please advise.


Would you mind identify which URN nid you are using?  I did not see one listed here:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml#urn-namespaces-1

that was obvious.

regards,

Ted

 

2) The specs is an IEC specification as well (see https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/21993 ). In addition, the text quoted is old. Anyone can download the specifications from the OPC Foundation website today.














From: Graham Klyne <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 2:07:11 AM
To: Randy Armstrong; [hidden email]
Cc: TCB
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA
 
I have two objections here to permanent registration:

1. The specifications appear to be non-open "Note: Access to specifications and
developer resources are available to OPC Foundation members only."

2. The use of multiple URI schemes to access the same resource goes against
principles of web architecture [http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-aliases].

This topic has been discussed previously on this list: see thread at [1].

[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=uri-review&gbt=1&index=ze2I30iloSGZxlP2vAeCWcPOWus

#g
--



On 22/05/2017 22:04, Randy Armstrong wrote:
> Scheme name:
>
> opc.tcp       :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over TCP/IP
> opc.amqp  :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over AMQP
> opc.wss      :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over WebSockets
>
> We expect to add new schemes as time goes on.
>
> Status:  permanent
>
> Applications/protocols that use this scheme name:
>
> Applications which implement the OPC UA Connection Protocol defined by the OPC Unified Architecture specification:
> https://opcfoundation.org/developer-tools/specifications-unified-architecture
>
> The opc.tcp scheme has been in use in the field for about 10 years (we were unaware of the registration process).
> Note that the OPC Foundation has a trademark on the term "OPC" (see US Trademark #78732560)
>
> Contact:
> Randy Armstrong
> [hidden email]
>
> Change controller:
> OPC Foundation
> https://opcfoundation.org/
>
> References:
> The protocols and schemes are defined in Part 6: Mappings:
> http://www.opcfoundation.org/UA/Part6/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review




_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA

Graham Klyne-2
On 23/05/2017 18:14, Randy Armstrong wrote:
> The Application URI is the canonical identifier, however, it is simply an opaque string. There is nothing in OPC UA depends on the content of the value.  We simply use URI syntax because is a requirement for including the identifier in the subjectAltName of an x509 v3 certificate.
>
>
> At this point I would like to know what is the benefit of registering anything? It seems like the main risk is the potential for accidental conflict with other uses of the same scheme. However, we would run into the same issue if our application was turned down and we used any existing scheme such as 'http' (which is the recommendation).

Provisional registration, for which the bar is deliberately set much lower,
would achieve this (avoiding accidental conflict).

#g
--

>
> ________________________________
> From: Ted Hardie <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 9:20:57 AM
> To: Randy Armstrong
> Cc: Graham Klyne; [hidden email]; TCB
> Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Randy Armstrong <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> The URN conforms  to:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2141
>
>
> Other than that the specification leaves it up to the implementer to choose something globally unique.
>
> RFC 3406, recently replaced by RFC 8141 go into the mechanics of URN registration.  Briefly, global uniqueness of the NID is maintained by a  global registry or URN namespace identifiers.
>
> Implementers also have the option of using the http scheme as the application URI.
>
> Is there a reason to register a URN scheme when we don't care about the content of the URN?
>
> ________________________________
>
> I understood your message below indicated that the URN was the canonical name for the resources, with the individual network paths being linked to that URN.  Did I get that wrong?
>
> regards,
>
> Ted
>
>
> From: Ted Hardie <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 8:34:50 AM
> To: Randy Armstrong
> Cc: Graham Klyne; [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>; TCB
>
> Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:30 AM, Randy Armstrong <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> 1) We use the schemes for URLs that identify multiple network paths to a single resource which is identified with a URI that uses the 'urn' scheme. It is not clear to me that registration is required for this usage. Please advise.
>
>
> Would you mind identify which URN nid you are using?  I did not see one listed here:
>
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml#urn-namespaces-1
>
> that was obvious.
>
> regards,
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> 2) The specs is an IEC specification as well (see https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/21993 ). In addition, the text quoted is old. Anyone can download the specifications from the OPC Foundation website today.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Graham Klyne <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 2:07:11 AM
> To: Randy Armstrong; [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> Cc: TCB
> Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA
>
> I have two objections here to permanent registration:
>
> 1. The specifications appear to be non-open "Note: Access to specifications and
> developer resources are available to OPC Foundation members only."
>
> 2. The use of multiple URI schemes to access the same resource goes against
> principles of web architecture [http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-aliases].
>
> This topic has been discussed previously on this list: see thread at [1].
>
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=uri-review&gbt=1&index=ze2I30iloSGZxlP2vAeCWcPOWus
>
> #g
> --
>
>
>
> On 22/05/2017 22:04, Randy Armstrong wrote:
>> Scheme name:
>>
>> opc.tcp       :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over TCP/IP
>> opc.amqp  :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over AMQP
>> opc.wss      :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over WebSockets
>>
>> We expect to add new schemes as time goes on.
>>
>> Status:  permanent
>>
>> Applications/protocols that use this scheme name:
>>
>> Applications which implement the OPC UA Connection Protocol defined by the OPC Unified Architecture specification:
>> https://opcfoundation.org/developer-tools/specifications-unified-architecture
>>
>> The opc.tcp scheme has been in use in the field for about 10 years (we were unaware of the registration process).
>> Note that the OPC Foundation has a trademark on the term "OPC" (see US Trademark #78732560)
>>
>> Contact:
>> Randy Armstrong
>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>>
>> Change controller:
>> OPC Foundation
>> https://opcfoundation.org/
>>
>> References:
>> The protocols and schemes are defined in Part 6: Mappings:
>> http://www.opcfoundation.org/UA/Part6/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Uri-review mailing list
>> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uri-review mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA

Graham Klyne-2
In reply to this post by Randy Armstrong
On 23/05/2017 13:30, Randy Armstrong wrote:
> 1) We use the schemes for URLs that identify multiple network paths to a single resource which is identified with a URI that uses the 'urn' scheme. It is not clear to me that registration is required for this usage. Please advise.
>

The URN as identifier seems reasonable enough.  I would suggest provisional
registration for the "network path" schemes, which seems more appropriate for these.

As far as I can tell from the registration template, your URI "network path"
schemes would not be used in the open Web, and as such would not be used
publicly in the Web as identifiers.

>
> 2) The specs is an IEC specification as well (see https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/21993 ). In addition, the text quoted is old. Anyone can download the specifications from the OPC Foundation website today.

It would help, then, to include a direct link to the publicly downloadable
specification in the registration template.

#g
--

>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Graham Klyne <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 2:07:11 AM
> To: Randy Armstrong; [hidden email]
> Cc: TCB
> Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Request for URI schemes assigned to OPC UA
>
> I have two objections here to permanent registration:
>
> 1. The specifications appear to be non-open "Note: Access to specifications and
> developer resources are available to OPC Foundation members only."
>
> 2. The use of multiple URI schemes to access the same resource goes against
> principles of web architecture [http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-aliases].
>
> This topic has been discussed previously on this list: see thread at [1].
>
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=uri-review&gbt=1&index=ze2I30iloSGZxlP2vAeCWcPOWus
>
> #g
> --
>
>
>
> On 22/05/2017 22:04, Randy Armstrong wrote:
>> Scheme name:
>>
>> opc.tcp       :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over TCP/IP
>> opc.amqp  :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over AMQP
>> opc.wss      :  OPC UA Connection Protocol over WebSockets
>>
>> We expect to add new schemes as time goes on.
>>
>> Status:  permanent
>>
>> Applications/protocols that use this scheme name:
>>
>> Applications which implement the OPC UA Connection Protocol defined by the OPC Unified Architecture specification:
>> https://opcfoundation.org/developer-tools/specifications-unified-architecture
>>
>> The opc.tcp scheme has been in use in the field for about 10 years (we were unaware of the registration process).
>> Note that the OPC Foundation has a trademark on the term "OPC" (see US Trademark #78732560)
>>
>> Contact:
>> Randy Armstrong
>> [hidden email]
>>
>> Change controller:
>> OPC Foundation
>> https://opcfoundation.org/
>>
>> References:
>> The protocols and schemes are defined in Part 6: Mappings:
>> http://www.opcfoundation.org/UA/Part6/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Uri-review mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
>>
>

_______________________________________________
Uri-review mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
Loading...