Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata




  • Review objectives and and establish priorities, workplan, subgroups (if any), etc.

Discussion items


Review WG objectives:

  1. Standardization. Review the ARK specification so that the authors, who are WG members, can finalize it and submit it to the IETF for publication as an Internet RFC.
  2. NAAN procedures. Adapt current CDL procedures for updating NAANs and registering new NAANs so that these maintenance activities can be shared by the community, eg, on github. (The NAAN registry that CDL currently maintains is a text file of globally unique 5-digit Name Assigning Authority Numbers (NAANs) reserved for organizations that wish to assign ARKs.)

  3. Counting ARKs. Work with the Outreach Working Group to implement mechanisms to measure ARK usage world-wide.


Announcement; the NAAN registry moved from to this week, with redirects in place to keep the old links stable.

15mReview relevant Experts Day meeting resultsJK 
5mReview of new RuffGUIDe counting methodJK
25mDiscussion: priorities, who is available to work, possibility of subgroups, recruitment of new members, ...All
    John Kunze will be taking lead on shepherding draft thru IETF;

    How we will proceed on draft -- apply changes in notes, plus any other issues from Curtis and Tom; this group will review draft (perhaps GitHub for diff’ing versions); once WG is satisfied, we can publish new Internet Draft (we can continue to publish new drafts as we receive comments from community and resolve and questions raised)

    Bertrand:  do we anticipate more changes?  John: we don’t anticipate many; also there is an advantage in making relatively few changes

    B: some have expressed concern about compatibility with URI spec; should we be tackling this issue?

    J:  there have been emails to AITO group on some of these issues; J will review; suggests caution wrt URI spec compatibility, which could get bogged down; J advocates incremental approach to avoid getting stuck on one subtask at the expense of others; we should consider statement articulating position RE: URI vs. browser compatibility

    Tom concerned, especially with reverse proxies; conforming to browser behaviour rather than specs a problem for them

    B suggests focusing first on draft spec before we start on other 2 deliverables; group agrees this is to be the priority

2. NAAN Procedures.

John has shared documentation with Bertrand
Current process: Google form which generates email, spreadsheet entry sent to CDL; script to enter contents of request; light review to make sure not spurious request or spam; entry added to registry; publishes; mirrored at BNF, NLM; gets combined with N2T resolver to set up redirection rules

Bertrand: often when institution requests NAAN, don’t have a resolver; no current mechanism to update entry when resolver available; needed

Example from Mark:
For those that haven’t seen it working (if there are those on this call). This ARK ark:/67531/metadc1453742
when appended to n2t


Will have some dependencies on NAAN work

Tom: we have over 3 billion ARKs; to cut down on mis-use, you need an account (but it's free)

10mPer-objective Leaders? Are objectives pursued in parallel or in sequence?All

Consensus of group is that first focus should be on finalizing specification and getting it published and through IETF procedures

Action items

  • Curtis and Tom will review the Notes from ARK "Experts" meetings in 2018 over the next 2 weeks
  • Bertrand will post link to discussions about URI compatibility and other issues that came out of discussion of proposed specification changes and AITO initiative
  • all will review proposed changes from ARKs Experts day;  we will proceed by clearing the deck of “small” problems; then focus on the knottier ones (EG URI vs. browser compatibility)
  • everyone in the WG will confirm that the N2T resolver works for their entry in the NAAN registry

  • John will start to document current NAAN procedures