@@ -184,4 +184,81 @@ provided.</field>
184184 <field to =" idtracker.iesglogin" name =" resurrect_requested_by" rel =" ManyToOneRel" ><None ></None ></field >
185185 <field type =" IntegerField" name =" approved_in_minute" >1</field >
186186 </object >
187+ <object pk =" 19892" model =" idtracker.internetdraft" >
188+ <field type =" CharField" name =" title" >Uniform Resource Name (URN) Syntax</field >
189+ <field type =" CharField" name =" id_document_key" >UNIFORM RESOURCE NAME (URN) SYNTAX</field >
190+ <field to =" idtracker.acronym" name =" group" rel =" ManyToOneRel" >1027</field >
191+ <field type =" CharField" name =" filename" >draft-ah-rfc2141bis-urn</field >
192+ <field type =" CharField" name =" revision" >00</field >
193+ <field type =" DateField" name =" revision_date" >2010-03-25</field >
194+ <field type =" CharField" name =" file_type" >.txt</field >
195+ <field type =" IntegerField" name =" txt_page_count" >18</field >
196+ <field type =" CharField" name =" local_path" ><None ></None ></field >
197+ <field type =" DateField" name =" start_date" >2010-03-25</field >
198+ <field type =" DateField" name =" expiration_date" ><None ></None ></field >
199+ <field type =" TextField" name =" abstract" >Uniform Resource Names (URNs) are intended to serve as persistent,
200+ location-independent, resource identifiers. This document serves as
201+ the foundation of the 'urn' URI Scheme according to RFC 3986 and sets
202+ forward the canonical syntax for URNs, which subdivides URNs into
203+ "namespaces". A discussion of both existing legacy and new
204+ namespaces and requirements for URN presentation and transmission are
205+ presented. Finally, there is a discussion of URN equivalence and how
206+ to determine it. This document supersedes RFC 2141.
207+
208+ The requirements and procedures for URN Namespace registration
209+ documents are currently set forth in RFC 3406, which is also expected
210+ to be updated by an independent, revised specification soon.
211+
212+ Discussion
213+
214+ This draft version has been obtained by importing the text from RFC
215+ 2141 into modern tools and making a first round of updating steps.
216+ It is intended to serve as one of the starting points for an effort
217+ to bring URN RFCs in alignment with STD 63, STD 68, BCP 26, and the
218+ requirements from emerging distributed national and international URN
219+ resolution systems, and advance them on the IETF Standards Track.
220+
221+ Until a more specific mailing list is established, comments are
222+ welcome on the uri-review@ietf.org mailing list (or sent to the
223+ document editor).</field >
224+ <field type =" DateField" name =" dunn_sent_date" ><None ></None ></field >
225+ <field type =" DateField" name =" extension_date" ><None ></None ></field >
226+ <field to =" idtracker.idstatus" name =" status" rel =" ManyToOneRel" >1</field >
227+ <field to =" idtracker.idintendedstatus" name =" intended_status" rel =" ManyToOneRel" >8</field >
228+ <field type =" DateField" name =" lc_sent_date" ><None ></None ></field >
229+ <field type =" CharField" name =" lc_changes" ><None ></None ></field >
230+ <field type =" DateField" name =" lc_expiration_date" ><None ></None ></field >
231+ <field type =" DateField" name =" b_sent_date" ><None ></None ></field >
232+ <field type =" DateField" name =" b_discussion_date" ><None ></None ></field >
233+ <field type =" DateField" name =" b_approve_date" ><None ></None ></field >
234+ <field type =" DateField" name =" wgreturn_date" ><None ></None ></field >
235+ <field type =" IntegerField" name =" rfc_number" ><None ></None ></field >
236+ <field type =" TextField" name =" comments" ><None ></None ></field >
237+ <field type =" DateField" name =" last_modified_date" >2010-03-25</field >
238+ <field to =" idtracker.internetdraft" name =" replaced_by" rel =" ManyToOneRel" ><None ></None ></field >
239+ <field type =" BooleanField" name =" review_by_rfc_editor" >0</field >
240+ <field type =" BooleanField" name =" expired_tombstone" >0</field >
241+ </object >
242+ <object pk =" 1027" model =" idtracker.acronym" >
243+ <field type =" CharField" name =" acronym" >none</field >
244+ <field type =" CharField" name =" name" >Individual Submissions</field >
245+ <field type =" CharField" name =" name_key" >INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSIONS</field >
246+ </object >
247+ <object pk =" 1027" model =" idtracker.ietfwg" >
248+ <field to =" idtracker.wgtype" name =" group_type" rel =" ManyToOneRel" >4</field >
249+ <field type =" DateField" name =" proposed_date" ><None ></None ></field >
250+ <field type =" DateField" name =" start_date" ><None ></None ></field >
251+ <field type =" DateField" name =" dormant_date" ><None ></None ></field >
252+ <field type =" DateField" name =" concluded_date" ><None ></None ></field >
253+ <field to =" idtracker.wgstatus" name =" status" rel =" ManyToOneRel" >1</field >
254+ <field to =" idtracker.areadirector" name =" area_director" rel =" ManyToOneRel" >112</field >
255+ <field type =" CharField" name =" meeting_scheduled" >NO</field >
256+ <field type =" CharField" name =" email_address" ></field >
257+ <field type =" CharField" name =" email_subscribe" ></field >
258+ <field type =" CharField" name =" email_keyword" ></field >
259+ <field type =" CharField" name =" email_archive" ></field >
260+ <field type =" TextField" name =" comments" >This is here so that 'none' can be entered in, for example, idform.</field >
261+ <field type =" DateField" name =" last_modified_date" >2002-06-24</field >
262+ <field type =" CharField" name =" meeting_scheduled_old" >NO</field >
263+ </object >
187264</django-objects >
0 commit comments