Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. Saint-Andre
Request for Comments: 8141 Filament
Obsoletes: 2141, 3406 J. Klensin
Category: Standards Track April 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) P. Saint-Andre
Request for Comments: 8141 Filament
Obsoletes: 2141, 3406 J. Klensin
Category: Standards Track April 2017
ISSN: 2070-1721
Uniform Resource Names (URNs)
统一资源名称（URN）
Abstract
摘要
A Uniform Resource Name (URN) is a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) that is assigned under the "urn" URI scheme and a particular URN namespace, with the intent that the URN will be a persistent, location-independent resource identifier. With regard to URN syntax, this document defines the canonical syntax for URNs (in a way that is consistent with URI syntax), specifies methods for determining URN-equivalence, and discusses URI conformance. With regard to URN namespaces, this document specifies a method for defining a URN namespace and associating it with a namespace identifier, and it describes procedures for registering namespace identifiers with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). This document obsoletes both RFCs 2141 and 3406.
统一资源名称（URN）是在“URN”URI方案和特定URN命名空间下分配的统一资源标识符（URI），其目的是使URN成为持久的、位置独立的资源标识符。关于URN语法，本文档定义了URN的规范语法（以与URI语法一致的方式），指定了确定URN等价性的方法，并讨论了URI一致性。关于URN名称空间，本文档指定了定义URN名称空间并将其与名称空间标识符关联的方法，并描述了向Internet Assigned Numbers Authority（IANA）注册名称空间标识符的过程。本文件淘汰了RFC 2141和3406。
Status of This Memo
关于下段备忘
This is an Internet Standards Track document.
这是一份互联网标准跟踪文件。
This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.
本文件是互联网工程任务组（IETF）的产品。它代表了IETF社区的共识。它已经接受了公众审查，并已被互联网工程指导小组（IESG）批准出版。有关互联网标准的更多信息，请参见RFC 7841第2节。
Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8141.
有关本文件当前状态、任何勘误表以及如何提供反馈的信息，请访问http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8141.
Copyright Notice
版权公告
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
版权所有（c）2017 IETF信托基金和确定为文件作者的人员。版权所有。
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
本文件受BCP 78和IETF信托有关IETF文件的法律规定的约束(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info)自本文件出版之日起生效。请仔细阅读这些文件，因为它们描述了您对本文件的权利和限制。从本文件中提取的代码组件必须包括信托法律条款第4.e节中所述的简化BSD许可证文本，并提供简化BSD许可证中所述的无担保。
Table of Contents
目录
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Design Trade-offs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.1. Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.2. Character Sets and Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2. URN Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1. Namespace Identifier (NID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2. Namespace Specific String (NSS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3. Optional Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.1. r-component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.2. q-component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.3. f-component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. URN-Equivalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. URI Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1. Use in URI Protocol Slots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2. Parsing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.3. URNs and Relative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4. Transport and Display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5. URI Design and Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. URN Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1. Formal URN Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2. Informal URN Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. Defining and Registering a URN Namespace . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.2. Registration Policy and Process: Community Registrations 25
6.3. Registration Policy and Process: Fast Track for Standards
Development Organizations, Scientific Societies, and
Similar Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.4. Completing the Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.4.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.4.2. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.4.3. Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.4.4. Security and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.4.5. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.4.6. Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.4.7. Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.1. URI Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.2. Registration of URN Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.3. Discussion List for New and Updated NID Registrations . . 31
8. Security and Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Design Trade-offs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.1. Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.2. Character Sets and Encodings . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2. URN Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1. Namespace Identifier (NID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2. Namespace Specific String (NSS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3. Optional Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.1. r-component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3.2. q-component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3.3. f-component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. URN-Equivalence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.2. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. URI Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.1. Use in URI Protocol Slots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2. Parsing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.3. URNs and Relative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4. Transport and Display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.5. URI Design and Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. URN Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1. Formal URN Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2. Informal URN Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. Defining and Registering a URN Namespace . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
6.2. Registration Policy and Process: Community Registrations 25
6.3. Registration Policy and Process: Fast Track for Standards
Development Organizations, Scientific Societies, and
Similar Bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6.4. Completing the Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.4.1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.4.2. Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.4.3. Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.4.4. Security and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.4.5. Interoperability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.4.6. Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.4.7. Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.1. URI Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.2. Registration of URN Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7.3. Discussion List for New and Updated NID Registrations . . 31
8. Security and Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Appendix A. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Appendix B. Changes from RFC 2141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
B.1. Syntax Changes from RFC 2141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
B.2. Other Changes from RFC 2141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix C. Changes from RFC 3406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Appendix A. Registration Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Appendix B. Changes from RFC 2141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
B.1. Syntax Changes from RFC 2141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
B.2. Other Changes from RFC 2141 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix C. Changes from RFC 3406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
A Uniform Resource Name (URN) is a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) [RFC3986] that is assigned under the "urn" URI scheme and a particular URN namespace, with the intent that the URN will be a persistent, location-independent resource identifier. A URN namespace is a collection of such URNs, each of which is (1) unique, (2) assigned in a consistent and managed way, and (3) assigned according to a common definition. (Some URN namespaces create names that exist only as URNs, whereas others assign URNs based on names that were already created in non-URN identifier systems, such as ISBNs [RFC3187], ISSNs [RFC3044], or RFCs [RFC2648].)
统一资源名称（URN）是在“URN”URI方案和特定URN命名空间下分配的统一资源标识符（URI）[RFC3986]，旨在使URN成为持久的、位置独立的资源标识符。URN名称空间是此类URN的集合，每个URN都是（1）唯一的，（2）以一致和受管理的方式分配，（3）根据公共定义分配。（某些URN名称空间创建的名称仅作为URN存在，而其他URN名称空间则基于在非URN标识符系统中已创建的名称分配URN，如ISBNs[RFC3187]、ISSNs[RFC3044]或RFCs[RFC2648]。）
The assignment of URNs is done by an organization (or, in some cases, according to an algorithm or other automated process) that has been formally delegated a URN namespace within the "urn" scheme (e.g., a URN in the "example" URN namespace [RFC6963] might be of the form "urn:example:foo").
URN的分配由一个组织完成（或者，在某些情况下，根据算法或其他自动化流程），该组织已在“URN”方案中正式授权URN命名空间（例如，“示例”URN命名空间[RFC6963]中的URN可能采用“URN:example:foo”的形式）。
This document rests on two key assumptions:
本文件基于两个关键假设：
1. Assignment of a URN is a managed process.
1. URN的分配是一个托管过程。
2. The space of URN namespaces is itself managed.
2. URN名称空间的空间本身是受管理的。
While other URI schemes may allow resource identifiers to be freely chosen and assigned, such is not the case for URNs. The syntactical correctness of a name starting with "urn:" is not sufficient to make it a URN. In order for the name to be a valid URN, the namespace identifier (NID) needs to be registered in accordance with the rules defined here, and the remaining parts of the assigned-name portion of the URN need to be generated in accordance with the rules for the registered URN namespace.
虽然其他URI方案可能允许自由选择和分配资源标识符，但URN的情况并非如此。以“urn:”开头的名称的语法正确性不足以使其成为urn。为了使名称成为有效的URN，需要根据此处定义的规则注册名称空间标识符（NID），并且需要根据注册的URN名称空间的规则生成URN的已分配名称部分的其余部分。
So that information about both URN syntax and URN namespaces is available in one place, this document does the following:
为了使有关URN语法和URN名称空间的信息在一个位置可用，本文档执行以下操作：
1. Defines the canonical syntax for URNs in general (in a way that is consistent with URI syntax), specifies methods for determining URN-equivalence, and discusses URI conformance.
1. 通常定义URN的规范语法（以与URI语法一致的方式），指定确定URN等价性的方法，并讨论URI一致性。
2. Specifies a method for defining a URN namespace and associating it with a particular NID, and describes procedures for registering URN NIDs with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).
2. 指定用于定义URN命名空间并将其与特定NID关联的方法，并描述向Internet Assigned Numbers Authority（IANA）注册URN NID的过程。
For URN syntax and URN namespaces, this document modernizes and replaces the original specifications for URN syntax [RFC2141] and for the definition and registration of URN namespaces [RFC3406]. These modifications build on the key requirements provided in the original functional description for URNs [RFC1737] and on the lessons of many years of experience. In those original documents and in the present one, the intent is to define URNs in a consistent manner so that, wherever practical, the parsing, handling, and resolution of URNs can be independent of the URN namespace within which a given URN is assigned.
对于URN语法和URN名称空间，本文档对URN语法[RFC2141]以及URN名称空间[RFC3406]的定义和注册的原始规范进行了更新和替换。这些修改基于URN原始功能说明[RFC1737]中提供的关键要求和多年经验教训。在这些原始文档和本文档中，目的是以一致的方式定义URN，以便在可行的情况下，URN的解析、处理和解析可以独立于指定URN的URN命名空间。
Together with input from several key user communities, the history and experiences with URNs dictated expansion of the URN definition to support new functionality, including the use of syntax explicitly reserved for future standardization in RFC 2141. All URN namespaces and URNs that were valid under the earlier specifications remain valid, even though it may be useful to update the definitions of some URN namespaces to take advantage of new features.
结合几个关键用户社区的输入，URN的历史和经验决定了URN定义的扩展，以支持新的功能，包括使用RFC 2141中明确保留用于未来标准化的语法。根据早期规范有效的所有URN名称空间和URN仍然有效，即使更新某些URN名称空间的定义以利用新功能可能很有用。
The foregoing considerations, together with various differences between URNs and URIs that are locators (specifically URLs) as well as the greater focus on URLs in RFC 3986 as the ultimate successor to [RFC1738] and [RFC1808], may lead to some interpretations of RFC 3986 and this specification that appear (or perhaps actually are) not completely consistent, especially with regard to actions or semantics other than the basic syntax itself. If such situations arise, discussions of URNs and URN namespaces should be interpreted according to this document and not by extrapolation from RFC 3986.
上述考虑因素，加上URN和URI之间作为定位器（特别是URL）的各种差异，以及作为[RFC1738]和[RFC1808]的最终继承者，RFC 3986中对URL的更多关注，可能会导致对RFC 3986和本规范的一些解释出现（或可能实际出现）不完全一致，特别是在基本语法本身以外的动作或语义方面。如果出现这种情况，应根据本文件解释URN和URN名称空间的讨论，而不是根据RFC 3986推断。
Summaries of changes from RFCs 2141 and 3406 appear in Appendices B and C, respectively. This document obsoletes both [RFC2141] and [RFC3406]. While it does not explicitly update or replace [RFC1737] or [RFC2276], the reader who references those documents should be aware that the conceptual model of URNs in this document is slightly different from those older specifications.
RFC 2141和3406的变更摘要分别见附录B和C。本文件废除了[RFC2141]和[RFC3406]。虽然没有明确更新或替换[RFC1737]或[RFC2276]，但参考这些文档的读者应该知道，本文档中的URN概念模型与那些旧规范略有不同。
The following terms are distinguished from each other as described below:
以下术语的区别如下所述：
URN: A URI (as defined in RFC 3986) using the "urn" scheme and with the properties of a "name" as described in that document as well as the properties described in this one. The term applies to the entire URI including its optional components. Note to the reader: the term "URN" has been used in other contexts to refer to a URN namespace, the namespace identifier, the assigned-name, and URIs that do not use the "urn" scheme. All but the last of these is described using more specific terminology elsewhere in this document, but, because of those other uses, the term should be used and interpreted with care.
URN：一个URI（如RFC3986中定义的），使用“URN”方案，并具有该文档中描述的“name”属性以及本文档中描述的属性。该术语适用于整个URI，包括其可选组件。读者注意：术语“URN”已在其他上下文中用于指不使用“URN”方案的URN名称空间、名称空间标识符、分配的名称和uri。除最后一项外，本文件其他部分均使用了更具体的术语进行了描述，但由于这些其他用途，应谨慎使用和解释该术语。
Locator: An identifier that provides a means of accessing a resource.
定位器：提供访问资源方法的标识符。
Identifier system: A managed collection of names. This document refers to identifier systems outside the context of URNs as "non-URN identifier systems".
标识符系统：名称的托管集合。本文件将URN上下文之外的标识符系统称为“非URN标识符系统”。
URN namespace: An identifier system that is associated with a URN NID.
URN命名空间：与URN NID关联的标识符系统。
NID: The identifier associated with a URN namespace.
NID：与URN命名空间关联的标识符。
NSS: The URN-namespace-specific part of a URN.
NSS：URN命名空间特定于URN的部分。
Assigned-name: The combination of the "urn:" scheme, the NID, and the namespace specific string (NSS). An "assigned-name" is consequently a substring of a URN (as defined above) if that URN contains any additional components (see Section 2).
分配名称：“urn:”方案、NID和命名空间特定字符串（NSS）的组合。因此，“指定名称”是URN（如上定义）的子字符串，如果该URN包含任何附加组件（请参见第2节）。
The term "name" is deliberately not defined here and should be (and, in practice, is) used only very informally. RFC 3986 uses the term as a category of URI distinguished from "locator" (Section 1.1.3) but also uses it in other contexts. If those uses are treated as definitional, they would conflict with, e.g., the idea of URN namespace names (i.e., NIDs) and with terms associated with non-URN identifier systems.
这里故意不定义术语“名称”，而应该（实际上）非常非正式地使用。RFC 3986使用该术语作为URI的一个类别，区别于“定位器”（第1.1.3节），但也在其他上下文中使用它。如果这些使用被视为定义性的，它们将与URN名称空间名称（即NID）的概念以及与非URN标识符系统相关的术语相冲突。
This document uses the terms "resource", "identifier", "identify", "dereference", "representation", and "metadata" roughly as defined in the URI specification [RFC3986].
本文档使用的术语“资源”、“标识符”、“标识”、“取消引用”、“表示”和“元数据”大致与URI规范[RFC3986]中的定义相同。
This document uses the terms "resolution" and "resolver" in roughly the sense in which they were used in the original discussion of architectural principles for URNs [RFC2276], i.e., "resolution" is the act of supplying services related to the identified resource, such as translating the persistent URN into one or more current locators for the resource, delivering metadata about the resource in an appropriate format, or even delivering a representation of the resource (e.g., a document) without requiring further intermediaries. At the time of this writing, resolution services are described in [RFC2483].
本文件使用的术语“解析”和“解析程序”的含义大致与最初讨论URN架构原则[RFC2276]时使用的含义相同，即“解析”是提供与已识别资源相关的服务的行为，例如，将持久化URN转换为资源的一个或多个当前定位器，以适当的格式提供关于资源的元数据，甚至在不需要进一步中介的情况下提供资源的表示（例如，文档）。在撰写本文时，[RFC2483]中描述了解析服务。
On the distinction between representations and metadata, see Section 1.2.2 of [RFC3986].
关于表示和元数据之间的区别，请参见[RFC3986]第1.2.2节。
Several other terms related to "normalization" operations that are not part of the Unicode Standard [UNICODE] are also used here as they are in RFC 3986.
与“规范化”操作相关的其他几个术语不属于Unicode标准[Unicode]的一部分，它们在RFC 3986中也被使用。
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
本文件中的关键词“必须”、“不得”、“必需”、“应”、“不应”、“建议”、“不建议”、“可”和“可选”应按照[RFC2119]中的说明进行解释。
To a degree much greater than when URNs were first considered and their uses outlined (see [RFC1737]), issues of persistent identifiers on the Internet involve fundamental design trade-offs that are much broader than URNs or the URN approach and even touch on open research questions within the information sciences community. Ideal and comprehensive specifications about what should be done or required across the entire universe of URNs would require general agreement about, and solutions to, a wide range of such issues. Although some of those issues were introduced by the Internet or computer-age approaches to character encodings and data abstraction, others predate the Internet and computer systems by centuries; there is unlikely to be agreement about comprehensive solutions in the near future.
互联网上持久性标识符的问题在某种程度上比第一次考虑URN和概述其用途时要大得多（见[RFC1737]），它涉及到基本的设计权衡，比URN或URN方法更广泛，甚至涉及到信息科学界的开放性研究问题。关于在整个骨灰盒领域中应该做什么或需要做什么的理想和全面的规范，需要就广泛的此类问题达成一致意见并提出解决方案。虽然其中一些问题是由互联网或计算机时代的字符编码和数据抽象方法引入的，但其他一些问题比互联网和计算机系统早了几个世纪；在不久的将来，不太可能就全面解决方案达成一致。
Although this specification consequently contains some requirements and flexibility that would not be present in a more perfect world, this has been necessary in order to produce a consensus specification that provides a modernized definition of URNs (the unattractive alternative would have been to not modernize the definition in spite of widespread deployment).
尽管本规范因此包含了一些在更完美的世界中不可能存在的要求和灵活性，但为了产生一个提供现代化骨灰盒定义的一致规范，这是必要的（没有吸引力的选择是，尽管广泛部署，但不使定义现代化）。
The following sub-sections describe two of the relevant issues in greater detail.
以下小节更详细地描述了其中两个相关问题。
One issue that is specific to URNs (as opposed to naming systems in general) is the fairly difficult topic of "resolution", discussed in Sections 1.1, 2.3.1, 6.4.6, and elsewhere below.
URN特有的一个问题（与一般命名系统相反）是相当困难的“解决方案”主题，在下文第1.1节、第2.3.1节、第6.4.6节和其他章节中讨论。
With traditional Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), i.e., with most URIs that are locators, resolution is relatively straightforward because it is used to determine an access mechanism that in turn is used to dereference the locator by (typically) retrieving a representation of the associated resource, such as a document (see Section 1.2.2 of [RFC3986]).
对于传统的统一资源定位器（URL），即对于大多数作为定位器的URI，解析相对简单，因为它用于确定访问机制，而访问机制又用于通过（通常）检索相关资源的表示（例如文档）来解引用定位器（请参见本手册第1.2.2节）[RFC3986]）。
By contrast, resolution for URNs is more flexible and varied.
相比之下，URN的分辨率更灵活和多样。
One important case involves the mapping of a URN to one or more locators. In this case, the end result is still a matter of dereferencing the mapped locator(s) to one or more representations. The primary difference here is persistence: even if a mapped locator has changed (e.g., a DNS domain name has changed hands and a URL has not been modified to point to a new location or, in a more extreme and hypothetical case, the DNS is replaced entirely), a URN user will be able to obtain the correct representation (e.g., a document) as long as the resolver has kept its URN-to-locator mappings up to date. Consequently, the relevant relationships can be defined quite precisely for URNs that resolve to locators that in turn are dereferenced to a representation.
一个重要的案例涉及URN到一个或多个定位器的映射。在这种情况下，最终结果仍然是将映射的定位器解引用到一个或多个表示。这里的主要区别是持久性：即使映射的定位器已更改（例如，DNS域名已易手，URL未被修改以指向新位置，或者在更极端和假设的情况下，DNS已被完全替换），URN用户也将能够获得正确的表示（例如，文档）只要解析器保持其URN到定位器的映射是最新的。因此，可以非常精确地为URN定义相关关系，这些URN解析为定位器，而定位器又被解除对表示的引用。
However, this specification permits several other cases of URN resolution as well as URNs for resources that do not involve information retrieval systems. This is true either individually for particular URNs or (as defined below) collectively for entire URN namespaces.
但是，本规范允许其他几种情况下的URN解析以及不涉及信息检索系统的资源的URN解析。这对于特定的URN单独是正确的，或者对于整个URN命名空间（定义如下）集体是正确的。
Consider a namespace of URNs that resolve to locators that in turn are dereferenced only to metadata about resources because the underlying systems contain no representations of those resources; an example might be a URN namespace for International Standard Name Identifiers (ISNIs) as that identifier system is defined in the relevant standard [ISO.27729.2012], wherein by default a URN would be resolved only to a metadata record describing the public identity identified by the ISNI.
考虑URN的命名空间，这些URN解析为定位器，而这些定位器又只被引用到关于资源的元数据，因为基础系统不包含这些资源的表示；例如，国际标准名称标识符（ISNI）的URN命名空间，因为该标识符系统在相关标准[ISO.27729.2012]中定义，其中，默认情况下，URN将仅解析为描述ISNI标识的公共标识的元数据记录。
Consider also URNs that resolve to representations only if the requesting entity is authorized to obtain the representation, whereas other entities can obtain only metadata about the resource; an example might be documents held within the legal depository collection of a national library.
还考虑仅在请求实体被授权获得表示的情况下才解析表示的URN，而其他实体只能获得关于资源的元数据；一个例子可能是国家图书馆法定保管馆藏中的文件。
Finally, some URNs might not be intended to resolve to locators at all; examples might include URNs identifying XML namespace names (e.g., the "dgiwg" URN namespace specified by [RFC6288]), URNs identifying application features that can be supported within a communications protocol (e.g., the "alert" URN namespace specified by [RFC7462]), and URNs identifying enumerated types such as values in a registry (e.g., a URN namespace could be used to individually identify the values in all IANA registries, as provisionally proposed in [IANA-URN]).
最后，有些URN可能根本不打算解析为定位器；示例可能包括标识XML命名空间名称的URN（例如，[RFC6288]指定的“dgiwg”URN命名空间）、标识通信协议中可支持的应用程序功能的URN（例如，[RFC7462]指定的“警报”URN命名空间），以及标识枚举类型（例如注册表中的值）的URN（例如，[IANA-URN]中临时提出的URN命名空间可用于单独标识所有IANA注册表中的值）。
Various types of URNs and multiple resolution services that may be available for them leave the concept of "resolution" more complicated but also much richer for URNs than the straightforward case of resolution to a locator that is dereferenced to a representation.
各种类型的URN和可供其使用的多分辨率服务使得“分辨率”的概念更加复杂，但对于URN来说，也比直接的分辨率更丰富，因为定位器与表示无关。
A similar set of considerations apply to character sets and encodings. URNs, especially URNs that will be used as user-facing identifiers, should be convenient to use in local languages and writing systems, easily specified with a wide range of keyboards and local conventions, and unambiguous. There are trade-offs among those goals, and it is impossible at present to see how a simple and readily understandable set of rules could be developed that would be optimal, or even reasonable, for all URNs. The discussion in Section 2.2 defines an overall framework that should make generalized parsing and processing possible but also makes recommendations about rules for individual URN namespaces.
一组类似的注意事项适用于字符集和编码。URN，尤其是将用作面向用户的标识符的URN，应便于在本地语言和书写系统中使用，易于使用各种键盘和本地约定进行指定，并且不含糊。这些目标之间存在权衡，目前不可能看到如何制定一套简单易懂的规则，使之对所有骨灰盒都是最佳的，甚至是合理的。第2.2节中的讨论定义了一个总体框架，该框架应使通用解析和处理成为可能，但也对各个URN名称空间的规则提出了建议。
As discussed above, the syntax for URNs in this specification allows significantly more functionality than was the case in the earlier specifications, most recently [RFC2141]. It is also harmonized with the general URI syntax [RFC3986] (which, it must be noted, was completed after the earlier URN specifications).
如上所述，本规范中的URN语法比早期规范（最近的[RFC2141]）中的情况允许更多的功能。它还与通用URI语法[RFC3986]相协调（必须注意，它是在早期的URN规范之后完成的）。
However, this specification does not extend the URN syntax to allow direct use of characters outside the ASCII range [RFC20]. That restriction implies that any such characters need to be percent-encoded as described in Section 2.1 of the URI specification [RFC3986].
但是，本规范并未扩展URN语法，以允许直接使用ASCII范围[RFC20]以外的字符。该限制意味着任何此类字符都需要按照URI规范[RFC3986]第2.1节所述进行百分比编码。
The basic syntax for a URN is defined using the Augmented Backus-Naur Form (ABNF) as specified in [RFC5234]. Rules not defined here (specifically: alphanum, fragment, and pchar) are defined as part of the URI syntax [RFC3986] and used here to point out the syntactic relationship with the terms used there. The definitions of some of
URN的基本语法是使用[RFC5234]中指定的增广的Backus-Naur形式（ABNF）定义的。此处未定义的规则（特别是：alphanum、fragment和pchar）被定义为URI语法[RFC3986]的一部分，并在此处用于指出与此处使用的术语的语法关系。其中一些定义
the terms used below are not comprehensive; additional restrictions are imposed by the prose that can be found in sections of this document that are specific to those terms (especially r-component in Section 2.3.1 and q-component in Section 2.3.2).
下面使用的术语不全面；本文件各节中针对这些术语（尤其是第2.3.1节中的r-成分和第2.3.2节中的q-成分）的章节中的散文施加了额外的限制。
namestring = assigned-name
[ rq-components ]
[ "#" f-component ]
assigned-name = "urn" ":" NID ":" NSS
NID = (alphanum) 0*30(ldh) (alphanum)
ldh = alphanum / "-"
NSS = pchar *(pchar / "/")
rq-components = [ "?+" r-component ]
[ "?=" q-component ]
r-component = pchar *( pchar / "/" / "?" )
q-component = pchar *( pchar / "/" / "?" )
f-component = fragment
namestring = assigned-name
[ rq-components ]
[ "#" f-component ]
assigned-name = "urn" ":" NID ":" NSS
NID = (alphanum) 0*30(ldh) (alphanum)
ldh = alphanum / "-"
NSS = pchar *(pchar / "/")
rq-components = [ "?+" r-component ]
[ "?=" q-component ]
r-component = pchar *( pchar / "/" / "?" )
q-component = pchar *( pchar / "/" / "?" )
f-component = fragment
The question mark character "?" can be used without percent-encoding inside r-components, q-components, and f-components. Other than inside those components, a "?" that is not immediately followed by "=" or "+" is not defined for URNs and SHOULD be treated as a syntax error by URN-specific parsers and other processors.
问号字符“？”可以在r-分量、q-分量和f-分量内部不使用百分比编码。除了这些组件内部之外，没有为URN定义紧跟“=”或“+”的“？”，并且特定于URN的解析器和其他处理器应将其视为语法错误。
The following sections provide additional information about the syntactic elements of URNs.
以下各节提供了有关URN语法元素的附加信息。
NIDs are case insensitive (e.g., "ISBN" and "isbn" are equivalent).
NID不区分大小写（例如，“ISBN”和“ISBN”是等效的）。
Characters outside the ASCII range [RFC20] are not permitted in NIDs, and no encoding mechanism for such characters is supported.
NIDs中不允许使用ASCII范围[RFC20]以外的字符，并且不支持此类字符的编码机制。
Sections 5.1 and 5.2 impose additional constraints on the strings that can be used as NIDs, i.e., the syntax shown above is not comprehensive.
第5.1节和第5.2节对可以用作NID的字符串施加了额外的限制，即，上面显示的语法并不全面。
The NSS is a string, unique within a URN namespace, that is assigned and managed in a consistent way and that conforms to the definition of the relevant URN namespace. The combination of the NID (unique across the entire "urn" scheme) and the NSS (unique within the URN namespace) ensures that the resulting URN is globally unique.
NSS是一个字符串，在URN命名空间中是唯一的，它以一致的方式分配和管理，并且符合相关URN命名空间的定义。NID（在整个“urn”方案中是唯一的）和NSS（在urn名称空间中是唯一的）的组合确保了生成的urn是全局唯一的。
The NSS as specified in this document allows several characters not permitted by earlier specifications (see Appendix B). In particular, the "/" character, which is now allowed, effectively makes it possible to encapsulate hierarchical names from non-URN identifier systems. For instance, consider the hypothetical example of a hierarchical identifier system in which the names take the form of a sequence of numbers separated by the "/" character, such as "1/406/47452/2". If the authority for such names were to use URNs, it would be natural to place the existing name in the NSS, resulting in URNs such as "urn:example:1/406/47452/2".
本文件中规定的NSS允许使用早期规范不允许的几个字符（见附录B）。特别是，现在允许的“/”字符可以有效地封装来自非URN标识符系统的分层名称。例如，考虑分层标识符系统的假设示例，其中的名称采用由“/”字符分隔的数字序列的形式，例如“1/406／47452/2”。如果此类名称的授权机构使用urn，则自然会将现有名称放入NSS中，从而生成urn，如“urn:example:1/406/47452/2”。
Those changes to the syntax for the NSS do not modify the encoding rules for URN namespaces that were defined in accordance with [RFC2141]. If any such URN namespace whose names are used outside of the URN context (i.e., in a non-URN identifier system) also allows the use of "/", "~", or "&" in the native form within that identifier system, then the encoding rules for that URN namespace are not changed by this specification.
对NSS语法的这些更改不会修改根据[RFC2141]定义的URN名称空间的编码规则。如果名称在URN上下文之外（即，在非URN标识符系统中）使用的任何此类URN命名空间也允许在该标识符系统内以本机形式使用“/”、“~”或“&”，则该URN命名空间的编码规则不受本规范的影响。
Depending on the rules governing a non-URN identifier system and its associated URN namespace, names that are valid in that identifier system might contain characters that are not allowed by the "pchar" production referenced above (e.g., characters outside the ASCII range or, consistent with the restrictions in RFC 3986, the characters "/", "?", "#", "[", and "]"). While such a name might be valid within the non-URN identifier system, it is not a valid URN until it has been translated into an NSS that conforms to the rules of that particular URN namespace. In the case of URNs that are formed from names that exist separately in a non-URN identifier system, translation of a name from its "native" format to a URN format is accomplished by using the canonicalization and encoding methods defined for URNs in general or specific rules for that URN namespace. Software that is not aware of namespace-specific canonicalization and encoding rules MUST NOT construct URNs from the name in the non-URN identifier system.
根据管理非URN标识符系统及其关联URN命名空间的规则，在该标识符系统中有效的名称可能包含上面引用的“pchar”产品不允许的字符（例如，ASCII范围之外的字符，或者符合RFC 3986中的限制，字符“/”、“？”，“#”、“[”和“]”。虽然此名称在非URN标识符系统中可能有效，但在转换为符合该特定URN命名空间规则的NSS之前，它不是有效的URN。如果URN是由非URN标识符系统中单独存在的名称组成的，则从其URN格式的“本机”格式是通过使用为URN定义的规范化和编码方法（通用或该URN命名空间的特定规则）来实现的。不知道特定于命名空间的规范化和编码规则的软件不得从非URN标识符系统中的名称构造URN。
In particular, with regard to characters outside the ASCII range, URNs that appear in protocols or that are passed between systems MUST use only Unicode characters encoded in UTF-8 and further encoded as required by RFC 3986. To the extent feasible and consistent with the requirements of names defined and standardized elsewhere, as well as the principles discussed in Section 1.2, the characters used to represent names SHOULD be restricted to either ASCII letters and digits or to the characters and syntax of some widely used models such as those of Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) [RFC5890], Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings (PRECIS) [RFC7613], or the Unicode Identifier and Pattern Syntax specification [UAX31].
特别是，对于ASCII范围之外的字符，出现在协议中或在系统之间传递的URN必须仅使用UTF-8编码的Unicode字符，并按照RFC 3986的要求进一步编码。在可行且符合其他地方定义和标准化的名称要求以及第1.2节讨论的原则的情况下，用于表示名称的字符应限制为ASCII字母和数字或一些广泛使用的模型的字符和语法，如应用程序中的国际化域名（IDNA）[RFC5890]，国际化字符串的准备、实施和比较（PRECIS）[RFC7613]，或Unicode标识符和模式语法规范[UAX31]。
In order to make URNs as stable and persistent as possible when protocols evolve and the environment around them changes, URN namespaces SHOULD NOT allow characters outside the ASCII range [RFC20] unless the nature of the particular URN namespace makes such characters necessary.
为了使URN在协议发展和周围环境变化时尽可能稳定和持久，URN名称空间不允许使用ASCII范围[RFC20]以外的字符，除非特定URN名称空间的性质需要这些字符。
This specification includes three optional components in the URN syntax. They are known as r-component, q-component, and f-component and are described in more detail below. Because this specification focuses almost exclusively on URN syntax, it does not define detailed semantics of these components for URNs in general. However, each of these components has a distinct role that is independent of any given URN and its URN namespace. It is intended that clients will be able to handle these components uniformly for all URNs. These components MAY be used with URNs from existing URN namespaces, whether or not a URN namespace explicitly supports them. However, consistent with the approach taken in RFC 3986, the behavior of a URN that contains components that are undefined or meaningless for a particular URN namespace or resource is not defined. The following sections describe these optional components and their interpretation in greater detail.
本规范包括URN语法中的三个可选组件。它们被称为r分量、q分量和f分量，下面将对它们进行更详细的描述。由于本规范几乎只关注URN语法，因此通常不为URN定义这些组件的详细语义。但是，这些组件中的每一个都有一个独立于任何给定URN及其URN命名空间的独特角色。其目的是使客户能够为所有URN统一处理这些组件。这些组件可以与现有URN命名空间中的URN一起使用，无论URN命名空间是否明确支持它们。但是，与RFC 3986中采用的方法一致，未定义包含未定义或对特定URN命名空间或资源没有意义的组件的URN的行为。以下各节将更详细地描述这些可选组件及其解释。
The r-component is intended for passing parameters to URN resolution services (taken broadly, see Section 1.2) and interpreted by those services. (By contrast, passing parameters to the resources identified by a URN, or to applications that manage such resources, is handled by q-components as described in the next section.)
r组件用于将参数传递给URN解析服务（广义而言，参见第1.2节），并由这些服务进行解释。（相比之下，将参数传递给URN标识的资源或管理此类资源的应用程序，则由q组件处理，如下一节所述。）
The URN r-component has no syntactic counterpart in any other known URI scheme.
URN r组件在任何其他已知URI方案中都没有语法对应项。
The sequence "?+" introduces the r-component. The r-component ends with a "?=" sequence (which begins a q-component) or a "#" character (number sign, which begins an f-component). If neither of those appear, the r-component continues to the end of the URN. Note that characters outside the ASCII range [RFC20] MUST be percent-encoded using the method defined in Section 2.1 of the generic URI specification [RFC3986].
序列“+”引入r分量。r分量以“？=”序列（以q分量开头）或“#”字符（数字符号，以f分量开头）结尾。如果两者均未出现，则r分量将继续到URN的末尾。请注意，ASCII范围[RFC20]之外的字符必须使用通用URI规范[RFC3986]第2.1节中定义的方法进行百分比编码。
As described in Section 3, the r-component SHALL NOT be taken into account when determining URN-equivalence. However, the r-component SHALL be supplied along with the URN when presenting a request to a URN resolution service.
如第3节所述，在确定URN等效性时，不应考虑r分量。但是，当向URN解决服务提出请求时，r组件应与URN一起提供。
This document defines only the syntax of the r-component and reserves it for future use. The exact semantics of the r-component and its use in URN resolution protocols are a matter for potential standardization in separate specifications, presumably including specifications that define conventions and a registry for resolution service identifiers.
本文档仅定义r组件的语法，并将其保留供将来使用。r组件的确切语义及其在URN解析协议中的使用是单独规范中潜在的标准化问题，可能包括定义约定的规范和解析服务标识符的注册表。
Consider the hypothetical example of passing parameters to a resolution service (say, an ISO alpha-2 country code [ISO.3166-1] in order to select the preferred country in which to search for a physical copy of a book). This could perhaps be accomplished by specifying the country code in the r-component, resulting in URNs such as:
考虑将参数传递给解决服务的假设示例（例如，ISO 2国家代码[ISO 3166-1），以便选择在其中搜索一本书的物理副本的首选国家）。这可以通过在r组件中指定国家代码来实现，从而生成URN，例如：
urn:example:foo-bar-baz-qux?+CCResolve:cc=uk
urn:example:foo-bar-baz-qux?+CCResolve:cc=uk
While the above should serve as a general explanation and illustration of the intent for r-components, there are many open issues with them, including their relationship to resolution mechanisms associated with the particular URN namespace at registration time. Thus, r-components SHOULD NOT be used for URNs before their semantics have been standardized.
尽管以上内容应作为r组件意图的一般性解释和说明，但它们存在许多开放性问题，包括它们与注册时与特定URN命名空间相关联的解析机制的关系。因此，在语义标准化之前，r组件不应用于URN。
The q-component is intended for passing parameters to either the named resource or a system that can supply the requested service, for interpretation by that resource or system. (By contrast, passing parameters to URN resolution services is handled by r-components as described in the previous section.)
q组件用于将参数传递给命名资源或可提供所请求服务的系统，以便该资源或系统进行解释。（相反，将参数传递给URN resolution services由r组件处理，如前一节所述。）
The URN q-component has the same syntax as the URI query component but is introduced by "?=", not "?" alone. For a URN that may be resolved to a URI that is a locator, the semantics of the q-component are identical to those for the query component of that URI. Thus, URN resolvers returning a URI that is a locator for a URN with a q-component do this by copying the q-component from the URN to the query component of the URI. An example of the copying operation appears below.
URN q组件与URI查询组件具有相同的语法，但由“？=”引入，而不是仅由“？”引入。对于可以解析为作为定位器的URI的URN，q组件的语义与该URI的查询组件的语义相同。因此，返回URI的URN解析器通过将q组件从URN复制到URI的查询组件来实现这一点，该URI是带有q组件的URN的定位器。下面是复制操作的一个示例。
This specification does not specify a required behavior in the case of URN resolution to a URI that is a locator when the original URN has a q-component and the URI has a query string. Different circumstances may require different approaches. Resolvers SHOULD document their strategy in such cases.
当原始URN具有q组件且URI具有查询字符串时，此规范未指定URN解析为作为定位器的URI时所需的行为。不同的情况可能需要不同的方法。在这种情况下，解决者应记录其策略。
If the URN does not resolve to a URI that is a locator, the interpretation of the q-component is undefined by this specification. For URNs that may be resolved to a URI that is a locator, the semantics of the q-component are identical to those for queries to the resource located via that URI.
如果URN没有解析为作为定位器的URI，那么该规范未定义q分量的解释。对于可以解析为作为定位器的URI的urn，q组件的语义与通过该URI定位的资源的查询的语义相同。
For the sake of consistency with RFC 3986, the general syntax and the semantics of q-components are not defined by, or dependent on, the URN namespace of the URN. In parallel with RFC 3986, specifics of syntax and semantics, e.g., which keywords or terms are meaningful, of course may depend on a particular URN namespace or even a particular resource.
为了与RFC 3986保持一致，q组件的一般语法和语义不由URN的URN命名空间定义或依赖于URN命名空间。与RFC 3986并行，语法和语义的细节，例如，哪些关键字或术语有意义，当然可能取决于特定的URN名称空间甚至特定的资源。
The sequence "?=" introduces the q-component. The q-component ends with a "#" character (number sign, which begins an f-component). If that character does not appear, the q-component continues to the end of the URN. The characters slash ("/") and question mark ("?") may represent data within the q-component. Note that characters outside the ASCII range [RFC20] MUST be percent-encoded using the method defined in Section 2.1 of the generic URI specification [RFC3986].
序列“=”引入q分量。q分量以“#”字符结尾（数字符号，以f分量开头）。如果该字符未出现，q分量将继续到URN的末尾。字符斜杠（“/”）和问号（“？”）可以表示q分量中的数据。请注意，ASCII范围[RFC20]之外的字符必须使用通用URI规范[RFC3986]第2.1节中定义的方法进行百分比编码。
As described in Section 3, the q-component SHALL NOT be taken into account when determining URN-equivalence.
如第3节所述，在确定URN等效性时，不应考虑q分量。
URN namespaces and associated information placement in syntax SHOULD be designed to avoid any need for a resolution service to consider the q-component. Namespace-specific and more generic resolution systems MUST NOT require that q-component information be passed to them for processing.
URN命名空间和语法中相关的信息放置应该被设计来避免任何需要考虑Q分量的解析服务。命名空间特定的和更通用的解析系统不能要求将q组件信息传递给它们进行处理。
Consider the hypothetical example of passing parameters to an application that returns weather reports from different regions or for different time periods. This could perhaps be accomplished by specifying latitude and longitude coordinates and datetimes in the URN's q-component, resulting in URNs such as the following.
考虑将参数传递给应用程序的假设示例，该应用程序返回来自不同区域或不同时间段的天气报告。这可以通过在URN的q组件中指定纬度和经度坐标以及日期时间来实现，从而生成如下URN。
urn:example:weather?=op=map&lat=39.56
&lon=-104.85&datetime=1969-07-21T02:56:15Z
urn:example:weather?=op=map&lat=39.56
&lon=-104.85&datetime=1969-07-21T02:56:15Z
If this example resolved to an HTTP URI, the result might look like:
如果此示例解析为HTTP URI，则结果可能如下所示：
https://weatherapp.example?op=map&lat=39.56
&lon=-104.85&datetime=1969-07-21T02:56:15Z
https://weatherapp.example?op=map&lat=39.56
&lon=-104.85&datetime=1969-07-21T02:56:15Z
The f-component is intended to be interpreted by the client as a specification for a location within, or region of, the named resource. It distinguishes the constituent parts of a resource named by a URN. For a URN that resolves to one or more locators that can be dereferenced to a representation, or where the URN resolver directly returns a representation of the resource, the semantics of an f-component are defined by the media type of the representation.
客户机打算将f组件解释为指定资源内某个位置或区域的规范。它区分由URN命名的资源的组成部分。对于解析为一个或多个定位器的URN，这些定位器可以解除对表示的引用，或者URN解析程序直接返回资源的表示，f组件的语义由表示的媒体类型定义。
The URN f-component has the same syntax as the URI fragment component. If a URN containing an f-component resolves to a single URI that is a locator associated with the named resource, the f-component from the URN can be applied (usually by the client) as the fragment of that URI. If the URN does not resolve to a URI that is a locator, the interpretation of the f-component is undefined by this specification. Thus, for URNs that may be resolved to a URI that is a locator, the semantics of f-components are identical to those of fragments for that resource.
URN f组件与URI片段组件具有相同的语法。如果包含f组件的URN解析为单个URI，该URI是与命名资源关联的定位器，则可以（通常由客户端）将URN中的f组件作为该URI的片段应用。如果URN未解析为作为定位器的URI，则本规范未定义f组件的解释。因此，对于可以解析为作为定位器的URI的URN，f组件的语义与该资源的片段的语义相同。
For the sake of consistency with RFC 3986, neither the general syntax nor the semantics of f-components are defined by, or dependent on, the URN namespace of the URN. In parallel with RFC 3986, specifics of syntax and semantics, e.g., which keywords or terms are meaningful, of course may depend on a particular URN namespace or even a particular resource.
为了与RFC 3986保持一致，f组件的一般语法和语义都不是由URN的URN命名空间定义的，也不是依赖于URN命名空间的。与RFC 3986并行，语法和语义的细节，例如，哪些关键字或术语有意义，当然可能取决于特定的URN名称空间甚至特定的资源。
The f-component is introduced by the number sign ("#") character and terminated by the end of the URI. Any characters outside the ASCII range [RFC20] that appear in the f-component MUST be percent-encoded using the method defined in Section 2.1 of the generic URI specification [RFC3986].
f分量由数字符号（“#”）字符引入，并以URI结尾终止。f组件中出现的ASCII范围[RFC20]之外的任何字符必须使用通用URI规范[RFC3986]第2.1节中定义的方法进行百分比编码。
As described in Section 3, the f-component SHALL NOT be taken into account when determining URN-equivalence.
如第3节所述，在确定URN等效性时，不应考虑f分量。
Clients SHOULD NOT pass f-components to resolution services unless those services also perform object retrieval and interpretation functions.
客户端不应将f组件传递给解析服务，除非这些服务还执行对象检索和解释功能。
Consider the hypothetical example of obtaining resources that are part of a larger entity (say, the chapters of a book). Each part could be specified in the f-component, resulting in URNs such as:
考虑一下获取一个更大的实体（比如书的章节）的资源的假设例子。可以在f组件中指定每个零件，从而生成URN，例如：
urn:example:foo-bar-baz-qux#somepart
urn:example:foo-bar-baz-qux#somepart
For various purposes such as caching, it is often desirable to determine if two URNs are "the same". This is done most generally (i.e., independent of the scheme) by testing for equivalence (see Section 6.1 of [RFC3986]).
对于缓存等各种目的，通常需要确定两个URN是否“相同”。这通常通过测试等效性（见[RFC3986]第6.1节）来完成（即，独立于方案）。
The generic URI specification [RFC3986] is very flexible about equality comparisons, putting the focus on allowing false negatives and avoiding false positives. If comparisons are made in a scheme-independent way, i.e., as URI comparisons only, many URNs that this specification considers equal would be rejected. The discussion below applies when the URIs involved are known to be URNs and thus uses the terms "URN-equivalent" and "URN-equivalence" to refer to equivalence as specified in this document.
通用URI规范[RFC3986]在平等性比较方面非常灵活，将重点放在允许误报和避免误报上。如果以独立于方案的方式进行比较，即仅作为URI比较，则本规范认为相等的许多URN将被拒绝。以下讨论适用于已知涉及的URI为URN，因此使用术语“URN等效”和“URN等效”来指代本文档中规定的等效。
Two URNs are URN-equivalent if their assigned-name portions are octet-by-octet equal after applying case normalization (as specified in Section 6.2.2.1 of [RFC3986]) to the following constructs:
如果两个URN的指定名称部分在对以下结构应用大小写规范化（如[RFC3986]第6.2.2.1节所述）后是八进制相等的，则两个URN是等效的URN：
1. the URI scheme "urn", by conversion to lower case
1. URI方案“urn”，通过转换为小写
2. the NID, by conversion to lower case
2. NID，通过转换为小写
3. any percent-encoded characters in the NSS (that is, all character triplets that match the <pct-encoding> production found in Section 2.1 of the base URI specification [RFC3986]), by conversion to upper case for the digits A-F.
3. NSS中的任何百分比编码字符（即，与基本URI规范[RFC3986]第2.1节中的<pct encoding>产品相匹配的所有字符三元组），通过将数字A-F转换为大写。
Percent-encoded characters MUST NOT be decoded, i.e., percent-encoding normalization (as specified in Section 6.2.2.2 of [RFC3986]) MUST NOT be applied as part of the comparison process.
百分比编码字符不得解码，即百分比编码规范化（如[RFC3986]第6.2.2.2节规定）不得作为比较过程的一部分应用。
If an r-component, q-component, or f-component (or any combination thereof) is included in a URN, it MUST be ignored for purposes of determining URN-equivalence.
如果URN中包含r分量、q分量或f分量（或其任何组合），则必须忽略该分量以确定URN等效性。
URN namespace definitions MAY include additional rules for URN-equivalence, such as case insensitivity of the NSS (or parts thereof). Such rules MUST always have the effect of eliminating some of the false negatives obtained by the procedure above and MUST NOT result in treating two URNs as not "the same" if the procedure here says they are URN-equivalent. For related considerations with regard to NID registration, see below.
URN命名空间定义可能包括URN等价性的附加规则，例如NSS（或其部分）的大小写不敏感。此类规则必须始终具有消除通过上述程序获得的一些假阴性的效果，并且如果此处的程序表明两个URN是等效的，则不得导致将两个URN视为不“相同”。有关NID注册的相关注意事项，请参见下文。
This section shows a variety of URNs (using the "example" NID defined in [RFC6963]) that highlight the URN-equivalence rules.
本节展示了各种URN（使用[RFC6963]中定义的“示例”NID），它们突出显示了URN等价规则。
First, because the scheme and NID are case insensitive, the following three URNs are URN-equivalent to each other:
首先，由于scheme和NID不区分大小写，因此以下三个URN彼此等效：
o urn:example:a123,z456
o 瓮：示例：a123，z456
o URN:example:a123,z456
o 瓮：示例：a123，z456
o urn:EXAMPLE:a123,z456
o 瓮：示例：a123，z456
Second, because the r-component, q-component, and f-component are not taken into account for purposes of testing URN-equivalence, the following three URNs are URN-equivalent to the first three examples above:
其次，由于测试URN等效性时未考虑r分量、q分量和f分量，因此以下三个URN等效于上述前三个示例：
o urn:example:a123,z456?+abc
o 瓮：示例：a123，z456？+abc
o urn:example:a123,z456?=xyz
o urn：示例：a123，z456？=xyz
o urn:example:a123,z456#789
o 瓮：示例：a123，z456#789
Third, because the "/" character (and anything that follows it) in the NSS is taken into account for purposes of URN-equivalence, the following URNs are not URN-equivalent to each other or to the six preceding URNs:
第三，由于NSS中的“/”字符（以及其后的任何字符）是为了实现URN等效而考虑的，因此以下URN彼此或与前面的六个URN不等效：
o urn:example:a123,z456/foo
o urn:example:a123，z456/foo
o urn:example:a123,z456/bar
o 瓮：示例：a123，z456/巴
o urn:example:a123,z456/baz
o 瓮：示例：a123、z456/baz
Fourth, because of percent-encoding, the following URNs are URN-equivalent only to each other and not to any of those above (note that, although %2C is the percent-encoded transformation of "," from the previous examples, such sequences are not decoded for purposes of testing URN-equivalence):
第四，由于百分比编码，以下URN仅彼此等效，而不与上述任何URN等效（注意，尽管%2C是前面示例中“，”的百分比编码转换，但出于测试URN等效性的目的，此类序列未解码）：
o urn:example:a123%2Cz456
o urn：示例：a123%2Cz456
o URN:EXAMPLE:a123%2cz456
o URN：示例：a123%2cz456
Fifth, because characters in the NSS other than percent-encoded sequences are treated in a case-sensitive manner (unless otherwise specified for the URN namespace in question), the following URNs are not URN-equivalent to the first three URNs:
第五，由于NSS中除百分比编码序列以外的字符都是以区分大小写的方式处理的（除非对相关URN命名空间另有规定），因此以下URN与前三个URN不同：
o urn:example:A123,z456
o 瓮：示例：A123，z456
o urn:example:a123,Z456
o 瓮：示例：a123，Z456
Sixth, on casual visual inspection of a URN presented in a human-oriented interface, the following URN might appear the same as the first three URNs (because U+0430 CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER A can be confused with U+0061 LATIN SMALL LETTER A), but it is not URN-equivalent to the first three URNs:
第六，在对人性化界面中显示的URN进行偶然目视检查时，以下URN可能与前三个URN相同（因为U+0430西里尔字母a可能与U+0061拉丁字母a混淆），但它并不等同于前三个URN：
o urn:example:%D0%B0123,z456
o urn：示例：%D0%B0123，z456
Because a URN is, syntactically, a URI under the "urn" scheme, in theory a URN can be placed in any protocol slot that allows for a URI (to name just a few, the "href" and "src" attributes in HTML, the base element in HTML, the "xml:base" attribute in XML [XML-BASE], and the "xmlns" attribute in XML for XML namespace names [XML-NAMES]).
由于URN在语法上是“URN”方案下的URI，因此理论上，URN可以放在允许URI的任何协议槽中（仅举几个例子，HTML中的“href”和“src”属性，HTML中的基本元素，xml[xml-base]中的“xml:base”属性，以及xml命名空间名称[xml-names]中的“xmlns”属性）。
However, this does not imply that, semantically, it always makes sense in practice to place a URN in a given URI protocol slot; in particular, because a URN might not specify the location of a resource or even point indirectly to one, it might not be appropriate to place a URN in a URI protocol slot that points to a resource (e.g., the aforementioned "href" and "src" attributes).
然而，这并不意味着，在语义上，将URN放在给定的URI协议槽中在实践中总是有意义的；特别是，由于URN可能不指定资源的位置，甚至可能不间接指向资源，因此将URN放置在指向资源的URI协议插槽中可能不合适（例如，前面提到的“href”和“src”属性）。
Ultimately, guidelines regarding when it is appropriate to use URIs under the "urn" scheme (or any other scheme) are the responsibility of specifications for individual URI protocol slots (e.g., the specification for the "xml:base" attribute in XML might recommend that it is inappropriate to use URNs in that protocol slot). This specification cannot possibly anticipate all of the relevant cases, and it is not the place of this specification to require or restrict usage for individual protocol slots.
最终，关于何时适合在“urn”方案（或任何其他方案）下使用URI的指导原则由各个URI协议槽的规范负责（例如，xml中“xml:base”属性的规范可能建议在该协议槽中使用urn是不合适的）。本规范不可能预测所有相关情况，本规范并不要求或限制对单个协议插槽的使用。
In part because of the separation of URN semantics from more general URI syntax, generic URI processors need to pay special attention to the parsing and analysis rules of RFC 3986 and, in particular, must treat the URI as opaque unless the scheme and its requirements are recognized. In the latter case, such processors may be in a position to invoke scheme-appropriate processing, e.g., by a URN resolver. A URN resolver can either be an external resolver that the URI resolver knows of or be functionality built into the URI resolver. Note that this requirement might impose constraints on the contexts in which URNs are appropriately used; see Section 4.1.
部分原因是URN语义与更通用的URI语法分离，通用URI处理器需要特别注意RFC 3986的解析和分析规则，特别是必须将URI视为不透明的，除非方案及其要求得到认可。在后一种情况下，这样的处理器可以调用方案适当的处理，例如通过URN解析器。URN解析器可以是URI解析器知道的外部解析器，也可以是内置于URI解析器中的功能。请注意，此要求可能会对适当使用URN的上下文施加限制；见第4.1节。
Section 5.2 of [RFC3986] describes an algorithm for converting a URI reference that might be relative to a given base URI into "parsed components" of the target of that reference, which can then be recomposed per RFC 3986, Section 5.3 into a target URI. This algorithm is problematic for URNs because their syntax does not support the necessary path components. However, if the algorithm is applied independent of a particular scheme, it should work predictably for URNs as well, with the following understandings (syntax production terminology taken from RFC 3986):
[RFC3986]第5.2节描述了一种算法，用于将可能与给定基本URI相关的URI引用转换为该引用目标的“已解析组件”，然后可根据RFC 3986第5.3节将其重新组合为目标URI。此算法对于URN是有问题的，因为它们的语法不支持必要的路径组件。但是，如果该算法独立于特定方案应用，则它也应可预测地适用于URN，并具有以下理解（语法生成术语取自RFC 3986）：
1. A system that encounters a <URI-reference> that obeys the syntax for <relative-ref>, whether it explicitly has the scheme "urn" or not, will convert it into a target URI as specified in RFC 3986.
1. 遇到符合<relative ref>语法的<URI reference>的系统，无论其是否显式具有方案“urn”，都会将其转换为RFC 3986中指定的目标URI。
2. Because of the persistence and stability expectations of URNs, authors of documents, etc., that utilize URNs should generally avoid the use of the "urn" scheme in any <URI-reference> that is not strictly a <URI> as specified in RFC 3986, specifically including those that would require processing of <relative-ref>.
2. 由于对urn的持久性和稳定性的期望，使用urn的文档作者等通常应避免在任何<URI reference>中使用“urn”方案，该<URI reference>不是RFC 3986中规定的严格<URI>，具体包括那些需要处理<relative ref>的方案。
When URNs are transported and exchanged, they MUST be represented in the format defined herein. Further, URN-aware applications are strongly encouraged to offer the option of displaying URNs in this canonical form to allow for direct transcription (for example by copy-and-paste techniques). Such applications might support the display of URNs in a more human-friendly form and might use a character set that includes characters that are not permitted in URN syntax as defined in this specification (e.g., when displaying URNs to humans, such applications might replace percent-encoded strings with characters from an extended character repertoire such as Unicode [UNICODE]).
在运输和交换骨灰盒时，必须按照此处定义的格式表示骨灰盒。此外，强烈鼓励URN感知应用程序提供以这种规范形式显示URN的选项，以允许直接转录（例如通过复制和粘贴技术）。此类应用程序可能支持以更人性化的形式显示URN，并且可能使用包含本规范中定义的URN语法中不允许的字符的字符集（例如，当向人类显示URN时，此类应用程序可能会将百分比编码字符串替换为扩展字符库（如Unicode[Unicode]）中的字符。
To minimize user confusion, any application displaying URIs SHOULD display the complete URI (including, for URNs, the "urn" scheme and any components) to ensure that there is no confusion between URN NIDs and URI scheme identifiers. For example, a URI beginning with "urn:xmpp:" [RFC4854] is very different from a URI beginning with "xmpp:" [RFC5122]. Similarly, a potential Digital Object Identifier (DOI) URI scheme [DOI-URI] is different from, and possibly completely unrelated to, a possible DOI URN namespace.
为了尽量减少用户混淆，任何显示URI的应用程序都应该显示完整的URI（对于urn，包括“urn”方案和任何组件），以确保urn NID和URI方案标识符之间没有混淆。例如，以“urn:xmpp:[RFC4854]开头的URI与以“xmpp:[RFC5122]开头的URI非常不同。类似地，潜在的数字对象标识符（DOI）URI方案[DOI-URI]与可能的DOI-URN名称空间不同，并且可能完全无关。
As mentioned, the assignment of URNs within a URN namespace is a managed process, as is the assignment of URN namespaces themselves. Although design of the URNs to be assigned within a given URN namespace is ceded by this specification to the URN namespace manager, doing so in a managed way avoids the problems inherent in unmanaged generation of URIs as described in the recommendations regarding URI design and ownership [RFC7320].
如前所述，URN名称空间内URN的分配是一个托管过程，URN名称空间本身的分配也是如此。尽管要在给定URN命名空间内分配的URN的设计由本规范让与给URN命名空间管理器，但以托管方式这样做可以避免URI设计和所有权建议[RFC7320]中描述的非托管生成URI所固有的问题。
A URN namespace is a collection of names that obey three constraints: each name is (1) unique, (2) assigned in a consistent way, and (3) assigned according to a common definition.
URN名称空间是一组名称，它们遵循三个约束：每个名称（1）唯一，（2）以一致的方式分配，（3）根据公共定义分配。
1. The "uniqueness" constraint means that a name within the URN namespace is never assigned to more than one resource and never reassigned to a different resource (for the kind of "resource" identified by URNs assigned within the URN namespace). This holds true even if the name itself is deprecated or becomes obsolete.
1. “唯一性”约束意味着URN命名空间中的名称从未分配给多个资源，也从未重新分配给其他资源（对于在URN命名空间中分配的URN标识的“资源”类型）。即使名称本身已被弃用或已过时，这一点仍然成立。
2. The "consistent assignment" constraint means that a name within the URN namespace is assigned by an organization or created in accordance with a process or algorithm that is always followed.
2. “一致分配”约束意味着URN命名空间中的名称由组织分配或根据始终遵循的流程或算法创建。
3. The "common definition" constraint means that there are clear definitions for the syntax of names within the URN namespace and for the process of assigning or creating them.
3. “公共定义”约束意味着对URN名称空间中的名称语法以及分配或创建名称的过程有明确的定义。
A URN namespace is identified by a particular NID in order to ensure the global uniqueness of URNs and, optionally, to provide a cue regarding the structure of URNs assigned within a URN namespace.
URN名称空间由特定NID标识，以确保URN的全局唯一性，并（可选）提供有关在URN名称空间中分配的URN结构的提示。
With regard to global uniqueness, using different NIDs for different collections of names ensures that no two URNs will be the same for different resources, because each collection is required to uniquely assign each name. However, a single resource MAY have more than one
关于全局唯一性，对不同的名称集合使用不同的NID可以确保对于不同的资源，没有两个URN是相同的，因为每个集合都需要唯一地分配每个名称。但是，单个资源可能有多个
URN assigned to it, either in the same URN namespace (if the URN namespace permits it) or in different URN namespaces, and for either similar purposes or different purposes. (For example, if a publisher assigns an ISBN [RFC3187] to an electronic publication and that publication is later incorporated into a digital long-term archive operated by a national library, the library might assign the publication a national bibliography number (NBN) [RFC3188], resulting in two URNs referring to the same book.) Subject to other constraints, such as those imposed by the URI syntax [RFC3986], the rules of the URN scheme are intended to allow preserving the normal and natural form of names specified in non-URN identifier systems when they are treated as URNs.
在同一个URN命名空间（如果URN命名空间允许）或不同的URN命名空间中，以及出于类似或不同的目的，为其分配URN。（例如，如果出版商将ISBN[RFC3187]分配给电子出版物，并且该出版物随后被纳入国家图书馆运营的数字长期档案，则图书馆可能会将出版物分配给国家书目编号（NBN）[RFC3188]，从而导致两个URN引用同一本书。）受限于其他约束，例如URI语法[RFC3986]施加的约束，URN方案的规则旨在允许在将非URN标识符系统中指定的名称视为URN时保留其正常和自然形式。
With regard to the structure of names assigned within a URN namespace, the development of a naming structure (and thereby a collection of names) depends on the requirements of the community defining the names, how the names will be assigned and used, etc. These issues are beyond the scope of URN syntax and the general rules for URN namespaces, because they are specific to the community defining a non-URN identifier system or a particular URN namespace (e.g., the bibliographic and publishing communities in the case of the "ISBN" URN namespace [RFC3187] and the "ISSN" URN namespace [RFC3044] or the developers of extensions to the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol [RFC6120] in the case of the "XMPP" URN namespace [RFC4854]).
关于在URN名称空间中分配的名称结构，命名结构（以及名称集合）的开发取决于定义名称的社区的要求、名称的分配和使用方式等。这些问题超出了URN语法和URN名称空间的一般规则的范围，因为它们特定于定义非URN标识符系统或特定URN名称空间的社区（例如，“ISBN”URN名称空间[RFC3187]和“ISSN”URN名称空间[RFC3044]中的书目和发布社区，或可扩展消息传递和呈现协议[RFC6120]扩展的开发者）对于“XMPP”URN名称空间[RFC4854]）。
Because the colon character (":") is used to separate "urn" from the NID and the NID from the NSS, it's tempting to think of the entire URN as being structured by colon characters and to assume that colons create a structure or hierarchy within the NSS portion of the URN. Such structure could be specified by a particular NID specification, but there is no implicit structure. In a URN such as
由于冒号字符（“：”）用于将“urn”与NID分开，将NID与NSS分开，因此很容易将整个urn看作是由冒号字符构成的，并假设冒号在urn的NSS部分中创建了一个结构或层次结构。这种结构可以由特定的NID规范指定，但没有隐式结构。在瓮中，如
urn:example:apple:pear:plum:cherry
urn:example:apple:pear:plum:cherry
the NSS string is "apple:pear:plum:cherry" as a whole, and there is no specific meaning to the colon characters within that NSS string unless such meaning is described in the specification of the "example" namespace.
NSS字符串作为一个整体是“apple:pear:plum:cherry”，并且该NSS字符串中的冒号字符没有特定含义，除非在“示例”名称空间的规范中描述了这种含义。
URN namespaces inherit certain rights and responsibilities by the nature of URNs, in particular:
URN名称空间根据URN的性质继承某些权利和责任，特别是：
1. They uphold the general principles of a well-managed URN namespace by providing persistent identification of resources and unique assignment of names in accordance with a common definition.
1. 它们支持管理良好的URN名称空间的一般原则，根据通用定义提供持久的资源标识和唯一的名称分配。
2. Optionally, they can be registered in global registration services such as those described in [RFC2483].
2. 或者，它们可以在全局注册服务中注册，如[RFC2483]中所述。
There are two types of URN namespaces: formal and informal. These are distinguished by the expected level of service, the information needed to define the URN namespace, and the procedures for registration. Because the majority of the URN namespaces registered so far have been formal, this document concentrates on formal URN namespaces.
URN名称空间有两种类型：正式名称空间和非正式名称空间。它们通过预期的服务级别、定义URN名称空间所需的信息以及注册过程来区分。由于到目前为止注册的大多数URN名称空间都是正式的，因此本文档将重点介绍正式的URN名称空间。
A formal URN namespace provides benefit to some subset of users on the Internet. In particular, it would not make sense for a formal URN namespace to be used only by a community or network that is not connected to the Internet. For example, it would be inappropriate for a URN namespace to effectively force someone to use a proprietary network or service not open to the general Internet user. The intent is that, while the community of those who might actively use the URNs assigned within that URN namespace might be small, the potential use of names within that URN namespace is open to any user on the Internet. Formal URN namespaces might be appropriate even when some aspects are not fully open. For example, a URN namespace might make use of a fee-based, privately managed, or proprietary registry for assignment of URNs in the URN namespace. However, it might still benefit some Internet users if the associated services have openly published names.
正式的URN命名空间为Internet上的某些用户子集提供了好处。特别是，仅由未连接到Internet的社区或网络使用正式的URN命名空间是没有意义的。例如，URN名称空间不适合有效地强制某人使用不向一般Internet用户开放的专有网络或服务。其目的是，尽管可能会积极使用在该URN名称空间中分配的URN的人的社区可能很小，但该URN名称空间中名称的潜在使用对Internet上的任何用户都是开放的。即使某些方面没有完全打开，正式的URN名称空间也可能是合适的。例如，URN名称空间可以使用收费的、私人管理的或专有的注册表来分配URN名称空间中的URN。但是，如果相关服务公开发布名称，可能仍会让一些互联网用户受益。
An organization that will assign URNs within a formal URN namespace SHOULD meet the following criteria:
将在正式URN命名空间中分配URN的组织应满足以下标准：
1. Organizational stability and the ability to maintain the URN namespace for a long time; absent such evidence, it ought to be clear how the URN namespace can remain viable if the organization can no longer maintain the URN namespace.
1. 组织稳定性和长期维护组织的能力；如果没有这样的证据，应该清楚的是，如果组织不能再维护URN名称空间，URN名称空间如何保持可行。
2. Competency in URN assignment. This will improve the likelihood of persistence (e.g., to minimize the likelihood of conflicts).
2. 能胜任URN任务。这将提高持久性的可能性（例如，将冲突的可能性降至最低）。
3. Commitment to not reassigning existing URNs and to allowing old URNs to continue to be valid (e.g., if the assignee of a URN is no longer a member or customer of the assigning organization, if various information about the assignee or named entity happens to change, or even if the assignee or the named entity itself is no longer in existence; in all these cases, the URN is still valid).
3. 承诺不重新分配现有骨灰盒并允许旧骨灰盒继续有效（例如，如果URN的受让人不再是转让组织的成员或客户，如果受让人或指定实体的各种信息发生变化，或者即使受让人或指定实体本身不再存在；在所有这些情况下，URN仍然有效）。
A formal URN namespace establishes a particular NID, subject to the following constraints (above and beyond the syntax rules already specified):
正式的URN名称空间建立特定的NID，受以下约束（超出已指定的语法规则）：
1. It MUST NOT be an already-registered NID.
1. 它不能是已注册的NID。
2. It MUST NOT start with "urn-" (which is reserved for informal URN namespaces).
2. 它不能以“urn-”开头（这是为非正式的urn名称空间保留的）。
3. It MUST be more than two characters long, and it MUST NOT start with ALPHA ALPHA "-", i.e., any string consisting of two letters followed by one hyphen; such strings are reserved for potential use as NIDs based on ISO alpha-2 country codes [ISO.3166-1] for eventual national registrations of URN namespaces (however, the definition and scoping of rules for allocation of responsibility for such country-code-based URN namespaces are beyond the scope of this document). As a consequence, it MUST NOT start with the string "xn--" or any other string consisting of two letters followed by two hyphens; such strings are reserved for potential representation of DNS A-labels and similar strings in the future [RFC5890].
3. 长度必须超过两个字符，且不得以ALPHA“-”开头，即任何由两个字母后跟一个连字符组成的字符串；此类字符串保留用作基于ISO alpha-2国家代码[ISO.3166-1]的NID，用于URN名称空间的最终国家注册（但是，此类基于国家代码的URN名称空间的责任分配规则的定义和范围超出了本文件的范围）。因此，它不能以字符串“xn--”或由两个字母后跟两个连字符组成的任何其他字符串开头；此类字符串保留用于将来DNS A标签和类似字符串的潜在表示[RFC5890]。
4. It MUST NOT start with the string "X-" so that it will not be confused with or conflict with any experimental URN namespace previously permitted by [RFC3406].
4. 它不能以字符串“X-”开头，以免与[RFC3406]先前允许的任何实验性URN命名空间相混淆或冲突。
Applicants and reviewers considering new NIDs should also be aware that they may have semantic implications and hence be a source of conflict. Particular attention should be paid to strings that might be construed as identifiers for, or registered under the authority of, countries (including ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes) and to strings that might imply association with existing URI schemes, non-URN identifier systems, or trademarks. However, in line with traditional policies, disputes about "ownership" of particular strings are disagreements among the parties involved; neither IANA nor the IETF will become involved in such disputes except in response to orders from a court of competent jurisdiction.
考虑新NID的申请人和审核人还应意识到，它们可能具有语义含义，因此是冲突的根源。应特别注意可能被解释为国家标识符或在国家授权下注册的字符串（包括ISO 3166-1 alpha-3代码），以及可能暗示与现有URI方案、非URN标识符系统或商标关联的字符串。然而，按照传统政策，有关特定字符串“所有权”的争议是有关各方之间的分歧；IANA和IETF都不会卷入此类纠纷，除非是响应具有管辖权的法院的命令。
Informal URN namespaces are full-fledged URN namespaces, with all the associated rights and responsibilities. Informal URN namespaces differ from formal URN namespaces in the process for assigning the NID: for an informal URN namespace, the registrant does not designate the NID; instead, IANA assigns the NID consisting of the string "urn-" followed by one or more digits (e.g., "urn-7") where the
非正式URN名称空间是成熟的URN名称空间，具有所有相关的权利和责任。非正式URN命名空间在分配NID的过程中不同于正式URN命名空间：对于非正式URN命名空间，注册人不指定NID；相反，IANA分配由字符串“urn-”和一个或多个数字（例如，“urn-7”）组成的NID，其中
digits consist of the next available number in the sequence of positive integers assigned to informal URN namespaces. Thus, the syntax of an informal URN namespace identifier is:
数字由分配给非正式URN名称空间的正整数序列中的下一个可用数字组成。因此，非正式URN命名空间标识符的语法为：
InformalNamespaceName = "urn-" Number
Number = DigitNonZero 0*Digit
DigitNonZero = "1"/ "2" / "3" / "4"/ "5"
/ "6" / "7" / "8" / "9"
Digit = "0" / DigitNonZero
InformalNamespaceName = "urn-" Number
Number = DigitNonZero 0*Digit
DigitNonZero = "1"/ "2" / "3" / "4"/ "5"
/ "6" / "7" / "8" / "9"
Digit = "0" / DigitNonZero
The only restrictions on <Number> are that it (1) consist strictly of ASCII digits, (2) not have leading zeros, and (3) not cause the NID to exceed the length limitations defined for the URN syntax (see Section 2).
<Number>的唯一限制是：（1）严格由ASCII数字组成，（2）没有前导零，（3）不会导致NID超过为URN语法定义的长度限制（参见第2节）。
Because the space of URN namespaces is itself managed, the definition of a URN namespace SHOULD pay particular attention to:
由于URN命名空间的空间本身是受管理的，因此URN命名空间的定义应特别注意：
1. The purpose of the URN namespace.
1. URN名称空间的用途。
2. The syntax of URNs assigned within the URN namespace, including the internal syntax and anticipated effects of r-components or q-components. (The syntax and interpretation of f-components are defined in RFC 3986.)
2. 在URN名称空间中分配的URN语法，包括内部语法和r组件或q组件的预期效果。（RFC 3986中定义了f组件的语法和解释。）
3. The process for assigning URNs within the URN namespace.
3. 在URN命名空间中分配URN的过程。
4. The security implications of assigning URNs within the URN namespace and of using the assigned URNs.
4. 在URN命名空间内分配URN和使用分配的URN的安全性影响。
5. Any potential interoperability issues with URNs assigned within the URN namespace.
5. 与在URN命名空间内分配的URN存在任何潜在的互操作性问题。
6. Optionally, the process for resolving URNs assigned within the URN namespace.
6. （可选）解析在URN命名空间中分配的URN的过程。
The section on completing the template (Section 6.4) explains these matters in greater detail. Although the registration templates are the same in all cases, slightly different procedures are used depending on the source of the registration.
关于完成模板的部分（第6.4节）更详细地解释了这些事项。尽管注册模板在所有情况下都是相同的，但根据注册的来源，使用的程序略有不同。
The basic registration policy for URN namespaces is Expert Review as defined in the IANA Considerations document [RFC5226]. For URN namespaces or their definitions that are intended to become standards or constituent parts of standards, the output of the Expert Review process is intended to be a report rather than instructions to IANA to take action (see below). The key steps are:
URN名称空间的基本注册策略是IANA注意事项文档[RFC5226]中定义的专家评审。对于打算成为标准或标准组成部分的URN名称空间或其定义，专家评审过程的输出是一份报告，而不是指示IANA采取行动（见下文）。关键步骤是：
1. Fill out the URN namespace registration template (see Section 6.4 and Appendix A). This can be done as part of an Internet-Draft or a specification in another series, although that is not a requirement.
1. 填写URN名称空间注册模板（参见第6.4节和附录A）。这可以作为互联网草案或其他系列规范的一部分来完成，尽管这不是一项要求。
2. Send the completed template to the urn@ietf.org discussion list for review.
2. 将完成的模板发送到urn@ietf.org供审查的讨论清单。
3. If necessary to address comments received, repeat steps 1 and 2.
3. 如果需要处理收到的评论，请重复步骤1和2。
4. If the Designated Experts approve the request and no standardization action is involved, the IANA will register the requested NID. If standardization is anticipated, the Designated Experts will prepare a report and forward it to the appropriate standards approval body (the IESG in the case of the IETF); IANA will register the requested NID only after receiving directions from that body and a copy of the Expert Review report.
4. 如果指定专家批准了请求，且未涉及任何标准化行动，IANA将注册请求的NID。如果预计标准化，指定专家将编制一份报告，并将其转发给相应的标准批准机构（IETF的IESG）；IANA只有在收到该机构的指示和专家评审报告副本后，才会注册所要求的NID。
A URN namespace registration can be revised by updating the registration template, following the same steps outlined above for new registrations. A revised registration MUST describe differences from prior versions and SHOULD make special note of any relevant changes in the underlying technologies or URN namespace management processes.
可以通过更新注册模板来修改URN命名空间注册，方法与上面为新注册概述的步骤相同。修订后的注册必须说明与以前版本的差异，并应特别注意底层技术或URN命名空间管理过程中的任何相关更改。
Experience to date with URN namespace registration requests has shown that registrants sometimes do not initially understand some of the subtleties of URN namespaces and that defining the URN namespace in the form of a specification enables the registrants to clearly formulate their "contract" with the intended user community. Therefore, although the registration policy for formal URN namespaces is Expert Review and a specification (as distinct from the registration template) is not strictly required, registrants SHOULD provide a stable specification documenting the URN namespace definition and expanding upon the issues described herein.
迄今为止，URN名称空间注册请求的经验表明，注册人有时最初并不了解URN名称空间的一些细微之处，以规范的形式定义URN名称空间使注册人能够清楚地与预期的用户社区制定“合同”。因此，尽管正式URN名称空间的注册政策是专家评审，并且不严格要求规范（与注册模板不同），但注册人应提供一个稳定的规范，记录URN名称空间定义并扩展本文所述的问题。
Because naming can be difficult and contentious, URN namespace registrants and the Designated Experts are strongly encouraged to work together in a spirit of good faith and mutual understanding to
由于命名可能困难且有争议，强烈鼓励URN名称空间注册人和指定专家本着诚信和相互理解的精神，共同努力
achieve rough consensus (see [RFC7282]) on handling registration requests. They are also encouraged to bring additional expertise into the discussion if that would be helpful in providing perspective or otherwise resolving issues.
在处理注册请求方面达成大致共识（见[RFC7282]）。还鼓励他们在讨论中引入更多的专门知识，如果这有助于提供观点或以其他方式解决问题。
Especially when iterations in the registration process are prolonged, Designated Experts are expected to take reasonable precautions to avoid "race conditions" on proposed NIDs and, if such situations arise, to encourage applicants to work out any conflicts among themselves.
特别是当注册过程中的迭代时间延长时，指定专家应采取合理的预防措施，避免在拟议的NID上出现“种族条件”，如果出现这种情况，鼓励申请人解决他们之间的任何冲突。
6.3. Registration Policy and Process: Fast Track for Standards Development Organizations, Scientific Societies, and Similar Bodies
6.3. 注册政策和流程：标准开发组织、科学协会和类似机构的快速通道
The IETF recognizes that situations will arise in which URN namespaces will be created to either embed existing and established standards, particularly identifier standards, or reflect knowledge, terminology, or methods of organizing information that lie well outside the IETF's scope or the likely subject matter knowledge of its Designated Experts. In situations in which the registration request originates from, or is authorized by, a recognized standards development organization, scientific society, or their designees, a somewhat different procedure is available at the option of that body:
IETF认识到，将出现这样的情况，即创建URN名称空间，以嵌入现有和已建立的标准，特别是标识符标准，或反映知识、术语，或组织信息的方法，这些信息远远超出IETF的范围或其指定专家可能掌握的主题知识。如果注册请求来源于或经公认标准制定组织、科学协会或其指定人员授权，则该机构可选择采用不同的程序：
1. The URN namespace registration template is filled out and submitted as in steps 1 and 2 of Section 6.2.
1. 按照第6.2节的步骤1和2填写并提交URN命名空间注册模板。
2. A specification is required that reflects or points to the needed external standards or specifications. Publication in the RFC Series or through an IETF process (e.g., posting as an Internet-Draft) is not expected and would be appropriate only under very unusual circumstances.
2. 需要反映或指向所需外部标准或规范的规范。在RFC系列中或通过IETF过程（例如，作为互联网草稿发布）中发布是不可能的，并且只有在非常不寻常的情况下才是合适的。
3. The reviews on the discussion list and by the Designated Experts are strictly advisory, with the decisions about what advice to accept and the length of time to allocate to the process strictly under the control of the external body.
3. 讨论清单上的审查和指定专家的审查都是严格的咨询性审查，关于接受何种咨询意见以及分配给该进程的时间长短的决定严格由外部机构控制。
4. When that body concludes that the application is sufficiently mature, its representative(s) will request that IANA complete the registration for the NID, and IANA will do so.
4. 当该机构认定申请已经足够成熟时，其代表将要求IANA完成NID的注册，IANA将这样做。
Decisions about whether to recognize the requesting entity as a standards development organization or scientific society are the responsibility of the IESG.
IESG负责决定是否承认请求实体为标准开发组织或科学协会。
A model similar to this has already been defined for recognized standards development organizations that wish to register media types. The document describing that mechanism [RFC6838] provides somewhat more information about the general approach.
已经为希望注册媒体类型的公认标准开发组织定义了类似的模型。描述该机制的文件[RFC6838]提供了有关一般方法的更多信息。
A template for defining and registering a URN namespace is provided in Appendix A. This section describes considerations for completing the template.
附录A中提供了定义和注册URN命名空间的模板。本节介绍了完成该模板的注意事项。
The "Purpose" section of the template describes matters such as:
模板的“目的”部分描述了以下事项：
1. The kinds of resources identified by URNs assigned within the URN namespace.
1. 由在URN命名空间中分配的URN标识的资源类型。
2. The scope and applicability of the URNs assigned within the URN namespace; this might include information about the community of use (e.g., a particular nation, industry, technology, or organization), whether the assigned URNs will be used on public networks or private networks, etc.
2. 在URN名称空间中分配的URN的范围和适用性；这可能包括有关使用社区（例如，特定国家、行业、技术或组织）的信息，指定的URN是否将用于公共网络或专用网络等。
3. How the intended community (and the Internet community at large) will benefit from using or resolving the assigned URNs.
3. 预期社区（以及整个互联网社区）将如何从使用或解析指定的URN中受益。
4. How the URN namespace relates to and complements existing URN namespaces, URI schemes, and non-URN identifier systems.
4. URN名称空间与现有URN名称空间、URI方案和非URN标识符系统的关联和补充方式。
5. The kinds of software applications that can use or resolve the assigned URNs (e.g., by differentiating among disparate URN namespaces, identifying resources in a persistent fashion, or meaningfully resolving and accessing services associated with the URN namespace).
5. 可以使用或解析分配的URN的软件应用程序的种类（例如，通过区分不同的URN名称空间，以持久方式标识资源，或有意义地解析和访问与URN名称空间关联的服务）。
6. Whether resolution services are available or will be available (and, if so, the nature or identity of the services). Examples of q-component and (when they are standardized) r-component semantics and syntax are helpful here, even if detailed definitions are provided elsewhere or later.
6. 解析服务是否可用或将可用（如果可用，服务的性质或标识）。q-component和（当它们被标准化时）r-component语义和语法的示例在这里很有用，即使在别处或以后提供了详细的定义。
7. Whether the URN namespace or its definition is expected to become a constituent part of a standard being developed in the IETF or some other recognized standards body.
7. URN名称空间或其定义是否有望成为IETF或某些其他公认标准机构正在开发的标准的组成部分。
The "Syntax" section of the template contains:
模板的“语法”部分包含：
1. A description of the structure of URNs within the URN namespace, in conformance with the fundamental URN syntax. The structure might be described in terms of a formal definition (e.g., using ABNF [RFC5234]), an algorithm for generating conformant URNs, or a regular expression for parsing the name into constituent parts; alternatively, the structure might be opaque.
1. URN命名空间中URN结构的描述，符合基本URN语法。可以根据形式定义（例如，使用ABNF[RFC5234]）、生成一致URN的算法或将名称解析为组成部分的正则表达式来描述该结构；或者，结构可能是不透明的。
2. Any special character encoding rules for assigned URNs (e.g., which character ought to always be used for quotes).
2. 指定URN的任何特殊字符编码规则（例如，应始终使用哪个字符作为引号）。
3. Rules for determining URN-equivalence between two names in the URN namespace. Such rules ought to always have the effect of eliminating false negatives that might otherwise result from comparison. If it is appropriate and helpful, reference can be made to particular equivalence rules defined in the URI specification [RFC3986] or to Section 3 of this document. Examples of URN-equivalence rules include equivalence between uppercase and lowercase characters in the NSS, between hyphenated and non-hyphenated groupings in the name, or between single quotes and double quotes. There may also be namespace-specific special encoding considerations, especially for URNs that contain embedded forms of names from non-URN identifier systems. (Note that these are not normative statements for any kind of best practice related to handling of relationships between characters in general; such statements are limited to one particular URN namespace only.)
3. 用于确定URN命名空间中两个名称之间的URN等效性的规则。这样的规则应该始终具有消除错误否定的效果，否则可能会导致比较。如果适当且有帮助，可以参考URI规范[RFC3986]中定义的特定等价规则或本文档第3节。URN等效规则的示例包括NSS中大小写字符之间的等效、名称中连字符和非连字符分组之间的等效、单引号和双引号之间的等效。还可能存在特定于命名空间的特殊编码注意事项，特别是对于包含非URN标识符系统中名称的嵌入形式的URN。（请注意，这些不是与处理字符之间关系相关的任何类型的最佳实践的规范性声明；此类声明仅限于一个特定的URN命名空间。）
4. Any special considerations necessary for conforming with the URN syntax. This is particularly applicable in the case of existing, non-URN identifier systems that are used in the context of URNs. For example, if a non-URN identifier system is used in contexts other than URNs, it might make use of characters that are reserved in the URN syntax. This section ought to note any such characters and outline necessary mappings to conform to URN syntax. Normally, this will be handled by percent-encoding the character as specified in Section 2.1 of the URI specification [RFC3986] and as discussed in Section 1.2.2 of this specification.
4. 符合URN语法所需的任何特殊注意事项。这尤其适用于在URN上下文中使用的现有非URN标识符系统。例如，如果在非URN的上下文中使用非URN标识符系统，则可能会使用URN语法中保留的字符。本节应注意任何此类字符，并概述符合URN语法的必要映射。通常，这将通过URI规范[RFC3986]第2.1节中规定的字符百分比编码以及本规范第1.2.2节中讨论的字符百分比编码来处理。
5. Any special considerations for the meaning of q-components (e.g., keywords) or f-components (e.g., predefined terms) in the context of this URN namespace.
5. 在此URN名称空间上下文中对q-组件（例如关键字）或f-组件（例如预定义术语）的含义的任何特殊考虑。
The "Assignment" section of the template describes matters such as:
模板的“分配”部分描述了以下事项：
1. Mechanisms or authorities for assigning URNs to resources. It ought to make clear whether assignment is completely open (e.g., following a particular procedure such as first-come, first-served (FCFS)), completely closed (e.g., for a private organization), or limited in various ways (e.g., delegated to authorities recognized by a particular organization); if limited, it ought to explain how to become an assigner of names or how to request assignment of names from existing assignment authorities.
1. 将URN分配给资源的机制或权限。应明确任务是完全开放的（例如，遵循特定程序，如先到先得（FCFS））、完全关闭的（例如，对于私人组织）还是以各种方式受限的（例如，委托给特定组织认可的权限）；如有限制，应说明如何成为名称转让人或如何向现有转让当局请求转让名称。
2. Methods for ensuring that URNs within the URN namespace are unique. For example, names might be assigned sequentially or in accordance with some well-defined process by a single authority, assignment might be partitioned among delegated authorities that are individually responsible for respecting uniqueness rules, or URNs might be created independently following an algorithm that itself guarantees uniqueness.
2. 用于确保URN命名空间中的URN唯一的方法。例如，名称可以由单个权限按顺序分配或按照某个定义良好的流程分配，分配可以在单独负责遵守唯一性规则的委托权限之间进行划分，或者可以按照本身保证唯一性的算法独立创建URN。
The "Security and Privacy" section of the template describes any potential issues related to security and privacy with regard to assignment, use, and resolution of names within the URN namespace. Examples of such issues include:
模板的“安全和隐私”部分描述了与URN命名空间中名称的分配、使用和解析有关的安全和隐私的任何潜在问题。这些问题的例子包括：
o The consequences of producing false negatives and false positives during comparison for URN-equivalence (see Section 3.1 of this specification and "Issues in Identifier Comparison for Security Purposes" [RFC6943]).
o 在URN等效性比较期间产生误报和误报的后果（参见本规范第3.1节和“出于安全目的的标识符比较问题”[RFC6943]）。
o Leakage of private information when names are communicated on the public Internet.
o 在公共互联网上传播姓名时泄露私人信息。
o The potential for directory harvesting.
o 目录获取的潜力。
o Various issues discussed in the guidelines for security considerations in RFCs [RFC3552] and the privacy considerations for Internet protocols [RFC6973]. In particular, note the privacy considerations text for the Global System for Mobile Communications Association (GSMA) / International Mobile station Equipment Identity (IMEI) namespace [RFC7254], which may provide a useful model for such cases.
o RFCs[RFC3552]安全注意事项指南和互联网协议隐私注意事项[RFC6973]中讨论的各种问题。特别是，请注意全球移动通信系统协会（GSMA）/国际移动站设备标识（IMEI）名称空间[RFC7254]的隐私注意事项文本，该文本可为此类情况提供有用的模型。
The "Interoperability" section MUST specify any known potential issues related to interoperability. Examples include possible confusion with other URN namespaces, non-URN identifier systems, or URI schemes because of syntax (e.g., percent-encoding of certain characters) or scope (e.g., overlapping areas of interest). If at all possible, concerns that arise during the registration of a URN namespace (e.g., due to the syntax or scope of a non-URN identifier system) should be resolved as part of or in parallel to the registration process.
“互操作性”部分必须指定与互操作性相关的任何已知潜在问题。示例包括由于语法（例如，某些字符的百分比编码）或范围（例如，感兴趣的重叠区域），可能与其他URN名称空间、非URN标识符系统或URI方案混淆。如果可能，在注册URN命名空间期间出现的问题（例如，由于非URN标识符系统的语法或范围）应作为注册过程的一部分或与注册过程并行解决。
The "Resolution" section MUST specify whether resolution mechanisms are intended or anticipated for URNs assigned within the URN namespace.
“解析”部分必须指定在URN名称空间中分配的URN是否需要解析机制。
If resolution is intended, then this section SHOULD specify whether the organization that assigns URNs within the URN namespace intends to operate or recommend any resolution services for URNs within that URN namespace. In addition, if the assigning organization intends to implement registration for publicly advertised resolution services (for example, using a system developed in the spirit of the original architectural principles and service descriptions for URN resolution [RFC2276] [RFC2483]), then this section SHOULD list or reference the requirements for being publicly advertised by the assigning organization. In addition, this section SHOULD describe any special considerations for the handling of r-components in the context of this URN namespace.
如果打算解析，则本节应指定在URN命名空间内分配URN的组织是否打算为该URN命名空间内的URN操作或推荐任何解析服务。此外，如果指派机构打算对公开宣传的解析服务进行注册（例如，使用按照URN解析[RFC2276][RFC2483]的原始体系结构原则和服务说明开发的系统），然后，本节应列出或参考派遣组织公开宣传的要求。此外，本节应该描述在这个URN名称空间的上下文中处理r组件的任何特殊注意事项。
The "Additional Information" section includes information that would be useful to those trying to understand this registration or its relationship to other registrations, such as comparisons to existing URN namespaces that might seem to overlap.
“附加信息”部分包括对那些试图了解此注册或其与其他注册的关系的人有用的信息，例如与可能重叠的现有URN命名空间的比较。
This section of the template is optional.
模板的此部分是可选的。
This section updates the registration of the "urn" URI scheme in the Permanent URI Registry [URI-Registry].
本节更新永久URI注册表[URI注册表]中“urn”URI方案的注册。
URI Scheme Name: urn
URI方案名称：urn
Status: permanent
地位：永久
URI Scheme Syntax: See Section 2 of RFC 8141.
URI方案语法：参见RFC 8141第2节。
URI Scheme Semantics: The "urn" scheme identifies Uniform Resource Names, which are persistent, location-independent resource identifiers.
URI方案语义：“urn”方案标识统一的资源名称，这些名称是持久的、与位置无关的资源标识符。
Encoding Considerations: See Section 2 of RFC 8141.
编码注意事项：参见RFC 8141第2节。
Applications/Protocols That Use This URI Scheme Name: Uniform Resource Names are used in a wide variety of applications, including bibliographic reference systems and as names for Extensible Markup Language (XML) namespaces.
使用此URI方案名称的应用程序/协议：统一资源名称用于各种应用程序，包括书目参考系统和可扩展标记语言（XML）名称空间的名称。
Interoperability Considerations: See Section 4 of RFC 8141.
互操作性注意事项：参见RFC 8141第4节。
Security Considerations: See Sections 6.4.4 and 8 of RFC 8141.
安全注意事项：见RFC 8141第6.4.4节和第8节。
Contact: URNBIS working group [mailto:urn@ietf.org]
Contact: URNBIS working group [mailto:urn@ietf.org]
Author/Change Controller: This scheme is registered under the IETF tree. As such, the IETF maintains change control.
作者/变更控制者：该方案在IETF树下注册。因此，IETF保持变更控制。
References: None.
参考文献：无。
This document outlines the processes for registering URN namespaces and has implications for the IANA in terms of registries to be maintained (see especially Section 6). In all cases, the IANA ought to assign the appropriate NID (formal or informal) once the procedures outlined in Section 6 have been completed.
本文档概述了注册URN名称空间的过程，并就要维护的注册中心对IANA有影响（特别参见第6节）。在所有情况下，一旦完成第6节中概述的程序，IANA应分配适当的NID（正式或非正式）。
As discussed elsewhere in this document, the discussion list specified in RFC 3406 (urn-nid@apps.ietf.org) is discontinued and replaced by the discussion list urn@ietf.org.
如本文件其他部分所述，RFC 3406（urn）中规定的讨论列表-nid@apps.ietf.org)已停止并由讨论列表替换urn@ietf.org.
The definition of a URN namespace needs to account for potential security and privacy issues related to assignment, use, and resolution of names within the URN namespace (e.g., some URN resolvers might assign special meaning to certain characters in the NSS); see Section 6.4.4 for further discussion.
URN命名空间的定义需要考虑与URN命名空间内名称的分配、使用和解析相关的潜在安全和隐私问题（例如，一些URN解析程序可能会为NSS中的某些字符指定特殊含义）；进一步讨论见第6.4.4节。
In most cases, URN namespaces provide a way to declare public information. Normally, these declarations will have a relatively low security profile; however, there is always the danger of "spoofing" and providing misinformation. Information in these declarations ought to be taken as advisory.
在大多数情况下，URN名称空间提供了一种声明公共信息的方法。通常，这些声明的安全性相对较低；然而，总是存在“欺骗”和提供错误信息的危险。这些声明中的信息应被视为咨询信息。
[RFC20] Cerf, V., "ASCII format for network interchange", STD 80, RFC 20, DOI 10.17487/RFC0020, October 1969, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>.
[RFC20]Cerf，V.，“网络交换的ASCII格式”，STD 80，RFC 20，DOI 10.17487/RFC0020，1969年10月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc20>.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC2119]Bradner，S.，“RFC中用于表示需求水平的关键词”，BCP 14，RFC 2119，DOI 10.17487/RFC2119，1997年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC3986] Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66, RFC 3986, DOI 10.17487/RFC3986, January 2005, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC3986]Berners Lee，T.，Fielding，R.，和L.Masinter，“统一资源标识符（URI）：通用语法”，STD 66，RFC 3986，DOI 10.17487/RFC3986，2005年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3986>.
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5226]Narten，T.和H.Alvestrand，“在RFCs中编写IANA注意事项部分的指南”，BCP 26，RFC 5226，DOI 10.17487/RFC5226，2008年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.
[RFC5234] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[RFC5234]Crocker，D.，Ed.和P.Overell，“语法规范的扩充BNF:ABNF”，STD 68，RFC 5234，DOI 10.17487/RFC5234，2008年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.
[DOI-URI] Paskin, N., Neylon, E., Hammond, T., and S. Sun, "The "doi" URI Scheme for the Digital Object Identifier (DOI)", Work in Progress, draft-paskin-doi-uri-04, June 2003.
[DOI-URI]Paskin，N.，Neylon，E.，Hammond，T.，和S.Sun，“数字对象标识符（DOI）的“DOI”URI方案”，正在进行的工作，草稿-Paskin-DOI-URI-042003年6月。
[IANA-URN] Saint-Andre, P. and M. Cotton, "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for IANA Registries", Work in Progress, draft-saintandre-iana-urn-01, February 2013.
[IANA-URN]Saint Andre，P.和M.Cotton，“IANA注册表的统一资源名（URN）命名空间”，正在进行的工作，草稿-Saint Andre-IANA-URN-01，2013年2月。
[ISO.27729.2012] ISO, "Information and documentation - International standard name identifier (ISNI)", ISO 27729:2012, Technical Committee ISO/TC 46, Information and documentation, Subcommittee SC 9, Identification and description, March 2012.
[ISO.27729.2012]ISO，“信息和文件-国际标准名称标识符（ISNI）”，ISO 27729:2012，技术委员会ISO/TC 46，信息和文件，小组委员会SC 9，标识和说明，2012年3月。
[ISO.3166-1] ISO, "Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions -- Part 1: Country codes", ISO 3166-1:2013, November 2013.
[ISO.3166-1]ISO，“国家及其分支机构名称表示代码——第1部分：国家代码”，ISO 3166-1:2013，2013年11月。
[RFC1737] Sollins, K. and L. Masinter, "Functional Requirements for Uniform Resource Names", RFC 1737, DOI 10.17487/RFC1737, December 1994, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1737>.
[RFC1737]Sollins，K.和L.Masinter，“统一资源名称的功能要求”，RFC 1737，DOI 10.17487/RFC1737，1994年12月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1737>.
[RFC1738] Berners-Lee, T., Masinter, L., and M. McCahill, "Uniform Resource Locators (URL)", RFC 1738, DOI 10.17487/RFC1738, December 1994, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1738>.
[RFC1738]Berners Lee，T.，Masinter，L.，和M.McCahill，“统一资源定位器（URL）”，RFC 1738，DOI 10.17487/RFC1738，1994年12月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1738>.
[RFC1808] Fielding, R., "Relative Uniform Resource Locators", RFC 1808, DOI 10.17487/RFC1808, June 1995, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1808>.
[RFC1808]菲尔丁，R.，“相对统一资源定位器”，RFC 1808，DOI 10.17487/RFC1808，1995年6月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1808>.
[RFC2141] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, DOI 10.17487/RFC2141, May 1997, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2141>.
[RFC2141]护城河，R.，“瓮语法”，RFC 2141，DOI 10.17487/RFC2141，1997年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2141>.
[RFC2276] Sollins, K., "Architectural Principles of Uniform Resource Name Resolution", RFC 2276, DOI 10.17487/RFC2276, January 1998, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2276>.
[RFC2276]Sollins，K.，“统一资源名称解析的架构原则”，RFC 2276，DOI 10.17487/RFC2276，1998年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2276>.
[RFC2483] Mealling, M. and R. Daniel, "URI Resolution Services Necessary for URN Resolution", RFC 2483, DOI 10.17487/RFC2483, January 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2483>.
[RFC2483]Mealling，M.和R.Daniel，“URN解析所需的URI解析服务”，RFC 2483，DOI 10.17487/RFC2483，1999年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2483>.
[RFC2648] Moats, R., "A URN Namespace for IETF Documents", RFC 2648, DOI 10.17487/RFC2648, August 1999, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2648>.
[RFC2648]Moats，R.，“IETF文档的URN名称空间”，RFC 2648，DOI 10.17487/RFC2648，1999年8月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2648>.
[RFC3044] Rozenfeld, S., "Using The ISSN (International Serial Standard Number) as URN (Uniform Resource Names) within an ISSN-URN Namespace", RFC 3044, DOI 10.17487/RFC3044, January 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3044>.
[RFC3044]Rozenfeld，S.，“在ISSN-URN名称空间中将ISSN（国际序列号）用作URN（统一资源名称）”，RFC 3044，DOI 10.17487/RFC30442001年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3044>.
[RFC3187] Hakala, J. and H. Walravens, "Using International Standard Book Numbers as Uniform Resource Names", RFC 3187, DOI 10.17487/RFC3187, October 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3187>.
[RFC3187]Hakala，J.和H.Walravens，“使用国际标准书号作为统一资源名称”，RFC 3187，DOI 10.17487/RFC3187，2001年10月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3187>.
[RFC3188] Hakala, J., "Using National Bibliography Numbers as Uniform Resource Names", RFC 3188, DOI 10.17487/RFC3188, October 2001, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3188>.
[RFC3188]Hakala，J.，“使用国家书目编号作为统一资源名称”，RFC 3188，DOI 10.17487/RFC3188，2001年10月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3188>.
[RFC3406] Daigle, L., van Gulik, D., Iannella, R., and P. Faltstrom, "Uniform Resource Names (URN) Namespace Definition Mechanisms", BCP 66, RFC 3406, DOI 10.17487/RFC3406, October 2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3406>.
[RFC3406]Daigle，L.，van Gulik，D.，Iannella，R.，和P.Faltstrom，“统一资源名称（URN）命名空间定义机制”，BCP 66，RFC 3406，DOI 10.17487/RFC3406，2002年10月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3406>.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.
[RFC3552]Rescorla，E.和B.Korver，“关于安全考虑的RFC文本编写指南”，BCP 72，RFC 3552，DOI 10.17487/RFC3552，2003年7月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.
[RFC4854] Saint-Andre, P., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Extensions to the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)", RFC 4854, DOI 10.17487/RFC4854, April 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4854>.
[RFC4854]Saint Andre，P.，“扩展消息和状态协议（XMPP）扩展的统一资源名（URN）命名空间”，RFC 4854，DOI 10.17487/RFC4854，2007年4月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4854>.
[RFC5122] Saint-Andre, P., "Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs) and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) for the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)", RFC 5122, DOI 10.17487/RFC5122, February 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5122>.
[RFC5122]Saint Andre，P.，“可扩展消息和状态协议（XMPP）的国际化资源标识符（IRI）和统一资源标识符（URI）”，RFC 5122，DOI 10.17487/RFC5122，2008年2月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5122>.
[RFC5890] Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework", RFC 5890, DOI 10.17487/RFC5890, August 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
[RFC5890]Klensin，J.，“应用程序的国际化域名（IDNA）：定义和文档框架”，RFC 5890，DOI 10.17487/RFC5890，2010年8月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5890>.
[RFC6120] Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 6120, DOI 10.17487/RFC6120, March 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6120>.
[RFC6120]Saint Andre，P.，“可扩展消息和状态协议（XMPP）：核心”，RFC 6120，DOI 10.17487/RFC6120，2011年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6120>.
[RFC6288] Reed, C., "URN Namespace for the Defence Geospatial Information Working Group (DGIWG)", RFC 6288, DOI 10.17487/RFC6288, August 2011, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6288>.
[RFC6288]Reed，C.“国防地理空间信息工作组（DGIWG）的URN名称空间”，RFC 6288，DOI 10.17487/RFC6288，2011年8月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6288>.
[RFC6648] Saint-Andre, P., Crocker, D., and M. Nottingham, "Deprecating the "X-" Prefix and Similar Constructs in Application Protocols", BCP 178, RFC 6648, DOI 10.17487/RFC6648, June 2012, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6648>.
[RFC6648]圣安德烈，P.，克罗克，D.，和M.诺丁汉，“反对应用协议中的“X-”前缀和类似结构”，BCP 178，RFC 6648，DOI 10.17487/RFC6648，2012年6月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6648>.
[RFC6838] Freed, N., Klensin, J., and T. Hansen, "Media Type Specifications and Registration Procedures", BCP 13, RFC 6838, DOI 10.17487/RFC6838, January 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
[RFC6838]Freed，N.，Klensin，J.和T.Hansen，“介质类型规范和注册程序”，BCP 13，RFC 6838，DOI 10.17487/RFC6838，2013年1月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6838>.
[RFC6943] Thaler, D., Ed., "Issues in Identifier Comparison for Security Purposes", RFC 6943, DOI 10.17487/RFC6943, May 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6943>.
[RFC6943]Thaler，D.，Ed.，“出于安全目的的标识符比较问题”，RFC 6943，DOI 10.17487/RFC6943，2013年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6943>.
[RFC6963] Saint-Andre, P., "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Examples", BCP 183, RFC 6963, DOI 10.17487/RFC6963, May 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6963>.
[RFC6963]Saint Andre，P.，“一个统一资源名（URN）名称空间示例”，BCP 183，RFC 6963，DOI 10.17487/RFC6963，2013年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6963>.
[RFC6973] Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J., Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, DOI 10.17487/RFC6973, July 2013, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.
[RFC6973]Cooper，A.，Tschofenig，H.，Aboba，B.，Peterson，J.，Morris，J.，Hansen，M.，和R.Smith，“互联网协议的隐私考虑”，RFC 6973，DOI 10.17487/RFC6973，2013年7月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6973>.
[RFC7254] Montemurro, M., Ed., Allen, A., McDonald, D., and P. Gosden, "A Uniform Resource Name Namespace for the Global System for Mobile Communications Association (GSMA) and the International Mobile station Equipment Identity (IMEI)", RFC 7254, DOI 10.17487/RFC7254, May 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7254>.
[RFC7254]Montemurro，M.，Ed.，Allen，A.，McDonald，D.，和P.Gosden，“全球移动通信系统协会（GSMA）和国际移动站设备标识（IMEI）的统一资源名称空间”，RFC 7254，DOI 10.17487/RFC7254，2014年5月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7254>.
[RFC7282] Resnick, P., "On Consensus and Humming in the IETF", RFC 7282, DOI 10.17487/RFC7282, June 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7282>.
[RFC7282]Resnick，P.，“关于IETF中的共识和嗡嗡声”，RFC 7282，DOI 10.17487/RFC7282，2014年6月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7282>.
[RFC7320] Nottingham, M., "URI Design and Ownership", BCP 190, RFC 7320, DOI 10.17487/RFC7320, July 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7320>.
[RFC7320]诺丁汉，M.，“URI设计和所有权”，BCP 190，RFC 7320，DOI 10.17487/RFC7320，2014年7月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7320>.
[RFC7462] Liess, L., Ed., Jesske, R., Johnston, A., Worley, D., and P. Kyzivat, "URNs for the Alert-Info Header Field of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 7462, DOI 10.17487/RFC7462, March 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7462>.
[RFC7462]Liess，L.，Ed.，Jeske，R.，Johnston，A.，Worley，D.，和P.Kyzivat，“会话启动协议（SIP）警报信息头字段的URN”，RFC 7462，DOI 10.17487/RFC7462，2015年3月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7462>.
[RFC7613] Saint-Andre, P. and A. Melnikov, "Preparation, Enforcement, and Comparison of Internationalized Strings Representing Usernames and Passwords", RFC 7613, DOI 10.17487/RFC7613, August 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7613>.
[RFC7613]Saint Andre，P.和A.Melnikov，“代表用户名和密码的国际化字符串的准备、实施和比较”，RFC 7613，DOI 10.17487/RFC7613，2015年8月<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7613>.
[UAX31] The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Standard Annex #31: Unicode Identifier and Pattern Syntax", Unicode 9.0.0, June 2015, <http://unicode.org/reports/tr31/>.
[UAX31]Unicode联合会，“Unicode标准附件#31：Unicode标识符和模式语法”，Unicode 9.0.0，2015年6月<http://unicode.org/reports/tr31/>.
[UNICODE] The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard", <http://www.unicode.org/versions/latest/>.
[UNICODE]UNICODE联盟，“UNICODE标准”<http://www.unicode.org/versions/latest/>.
[URI-Registry] IANA, "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) Schemes", <http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes>.
[URI注册表]IANA，“统一资源标识符（URI）方案”<http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes>.
[XML-BASE] Marsh, J. and R. Tobin, "XML Base (Second Edition)", W3C Recommendation REC-xmlbase-20090128, January 2009, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xmlbase-20090128>.
[XML-BASE]Marsh，J.和R.Tobin，“XML-BASE（第二版）”，W3C建议REC-xmlbase-20090128，2009年1月<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xmlbase-20090128>.
[XML-NAMES] Thompson, H., Hollander, D., Layman, A., Bray, T., and R. Tobin, "Namespaces in XML 1.0 (Third Edition)", W3C Recommendation REC-xml-names-20091208, December 2009, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208>.
[XML-NAMES]Thompson，H.，Hollander，D.，Layman，A.，Bray，T.，和R.Tobin，“XML 1.0中的名称空间（第三版）”，W3C建议REC-XML-NAMES-20091208，2009年12月<http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208>.
Namespace Identifier: Requested of IANA (formal) or assigned by IANA (informal).
名称空间标识符：由IANA请求（正式）或由IANA分配（非正式）。
Version: The version of the registration, starting with 1 and incrementing by 1 with each new version.
版本：注册的版本，从1开始，每个新版本递增1。
Date: The date when the registration is requested of IANA, using the format YYYY-MM-DD.
日期：IANA申请注册的日期，格式为YYYY-MM-DD。
Registrant: The person or organization that has registered the NID, including the name and address of the registering organization, as well as the name and contact information (email, phone number, or postal address) of the designated contact person. If the registrant is a recognized standards development organization, scientific society, or similar body requesting the fast-track registration procedure (see Section 6.3), that information should be clearly indicated in this section of the template.
注册人：已注册NID的个人或组织，包括注册组织的名称和地址，以及指定联系人的名称和联系信息（电子邮件、电话号码或邮政地址）。如果注册人是公认的标准制定组织、科学协会或要求快速注册程序的类似机构（见第6.3节），则应在模板的本节中明确说明该信息。
Purpose: Described in Section 6.4.1 of this document.
目的：如本文件第6.4.1节所述。
Syntax: Described in Section 6.4.2 of this document. Unless the registration explicitly describes the semantics of r-components, q-components, and f-components in the context of this URN namespace, those semantics are undefined.
语法：如本文件第6.4.2节所述。除非注册在这个URN名称空间的上下文中明确描述了r-components、q-components和f-components的语义，否则这些语义是未定义的。
Assignment: Described in Section 6.4.3 of this document.
分配：如本文件第6.4.3节所述。
Security and Privacy: Described in Section 6.4.4 of this document.
安全和隐私：在本文件第6.4.4节中描述。
Interoperability: Described in Section 6.4.5 of this document.
互操作性：如本文件第6.4.5节所述。
Resolution: Described in Section 6.4.6 of this document.
解决方案：如本文件第6.4.6节所述。
Documentation: A pointer to an RFC, a specification published by another standards development organization, or another stable document that provides further information about this URN namespace.
文档：指向RFC的指针、由另一个标准开发组织发布的规范或提供有关此URN命名空间的进一步信息的另一个稳定文档。
Additional Information: Described in Section 6.4.7 of this document.
附加信息：如本文件第6.4.7节所述。
Revision Information: Description of changes from prior version(s). (Applicable only when earlier registrations have been revised.)
修订信息：对先前版本更改的描述。（仅当先前的注册已修改时适用。）
This document makes substantive changes from the syntax and semantics of [RFC2141]:
本文件对[RFC2141]的语法和语义进行了实质性修改：
The syntax of URNs as provided in [RFC2141] was defined before the updated specification of URIs in [RFC3986]. The definition of URN syntax is updated in this document to do the following:
[RFC2141]中提供的URN语法是在[RFC3986]中更新的URI规范之前定义的。本文档更新了URN语法的定义，以执行以下操作：
o Ensure consistency with the URI syntax.
o 确保与URI语法一致。
o Facilitate the use of URNs with parameters similar to URI queries and fragments.
o 方便使用参数类似于URI查询和片段的URN。
o Permit parameters influencing URN resolution.
o 允许影响URN分辨率的参数。
o Ease the use of URNs with non-URN identifier systems that include the "/" character.
o 易于将URN与包含“/”字符的非URN标识符系统一起使用。
In particular, this specification does the following:
本规范特别规定了以下内容：
o Extends URN syntax to explicitly allow the characters "/", "?", and "#", which were reserved for future use by RFC 2141. This change also effectively allows several components of the URI syntax although without necessarily tying those components to URI semantics.
o 扩展URN语法以显式允许字符“/”、“？”和“#”，这些字符是RFC 2141保留供将来使用的。此更改还有效地允许URI语法的多个组件，尽管不必将这些组件绑定到URI语义。
o Defines general syntax for an additional component that can be used in interactions with a URN resolution service.
o 定义可用于与URN解析服务交互的其他组件的通用语法。
o Disallows "-" at the end of the NID.
o 不允许在NID末尾使用“-”。
o Allows the "/", "~", and "&" characters in the NSS.
o 允许在NSS中使用“/”、“~”和“&”字符。
o Makes several smaller syntax adjustments.
o 进行一些较小的语法调整。
o Formally registers "urn" as a URI scheme.
o 将“urn”正式注册为URI方案。
o Allows what are now called r-components, q-components, and f-components.
o 允许现在称之为r分量、q分量和f分量。
In addition, some of the text has been updated to be consistent with the definition of URIs [RFC3986] and the processes for registering information with the IANA [RFC5226], as well as more modern guidance with regard to security [RFC3552], privacy [RFC6973], and identifier comparison [RFC6943].
此外，部分文本已更新，以符合URI的定义[RFC3986]和向IANA注册信息的过程[RFC5226]，以及关于安全[RFC3552]、隐私[RFC6973]和标识符比较[RFC6943]的更现代的指南。
This document makes the following substantive changes from [RFC3406]:
本文件对[RFC3406]作了以下实质性修改：
1. Relaxes the registration policy for formal URN namespaces from "IETF Review" to "Expert Review" as discussed in Section 6.2.
1. 将正式URN名称空间的注册策略从“IETF审查”放宽为“专家审查”，如第6.2节所述。
2. Removes the category of experimental URN namespaces, consistent with [RFC6648]. Experimental URN namespaces were denoted by prefixing the namespace identifier with the string "X-". Because experimental URN namespaces were never registered, removing the experimental category has no impact on the existing registries. Because experimental URN namespaces are not managed, strings conforming to URN syntax within experimental URN namespaces are not valid URNs. Truly experimental usages may, of course, employ the "example" namespace [RFC6963].
2. 删除实验性URN名称空间的类别，与[RFC6648]一致。实验URN名称空间是通过在名称空间标识符前面加上字符串“X-”来表示的。由于实验性URN名称空间从未注册，因此删除实验性类别对现有注册表没有影响。由于实验性URN命名空间不受管理，因此符合实验性URN命名空间中URN语法的字符串不是有效的URN。当然，真正的实验性用法可能使用“示例”名称空间[RFC6963]。
3. Adds some information to, but generally simplifies, the URN namespace registration template.
3. 向URN命名空间注册模板添加一些信息，但通常会简化这些信息。
Acknowledgements
致谢
Many thanks to Marc Blanchet, Leslie Daigle, Martin Duerst, Juha Hakala, Ted Hardie, Alfred Hoenes, Paul Jones, Barry Leiba, Sean Leonard, Larry Masinter, Keith Moore, Mark Nottingham, Julian Reschke, Lars Svensson, Henry S. Thompson, Dale Worley, and other participants in the URNBIS working group for their input. Alfred Hoenes in particular edited an earlier draft version of this document and served as co-chair of the URNBIS working group.
非常感谢马克·布兰切特、莱斯利·戴格尔、马丁·杜尔斯、朱哈·哈卡拉、特德·哈迪、阿尔弗雷德·霍恩斯、保罗·琼斯、巴里·莱巴、肖恩·伦纳德、拉里·马斯特、基思·摩尔、马克·诺丁汉、朱利安·雷什克、拉尔斯·斯文森、亨利·S·汤普森、戴尔·沃利以及民革联工作组的其他参与者的投入。阿尔弗雷德·霍恩斯（Alfred Hoenes）特别编辑了本文件的早期草案，并担任了URNBIS工作组的联合主席。
Juha Hakala deserves special recognition for his dedication to successfully completing this work, as do Andrew Newton and Melinda Shore in their roles as working group co-chairs and Barry Leiba in his role as area director and then as co-chair.
朱哈·哈卡拉（Juha Hakala）对成功完成这项工作的贡献值得特别表彰，安德鲁·牛顿（Andrew Newton）和梅琳达·肖尔（Melinda Shore）担任工作组联席主席，巴里·莱巴（Barry Leiba）担任区域总监，然后担任联席主席。
Contributors
贡献者
RFC 2141, which provided the basis for the syntax portion of this document, was authored by Ryan Moats.
RFC 2141是Ryan Moats编写的，它为本文档的语法部分提供了基础。
RFC 3406, which provided the basis for the namespace portion of this document, was authored by Leslie Daigle, Dirk-Willem van Gulik, Renato Iannella, and Patrik Faltstrom.
RFC 3406是Leslie Daigle、Dirk Willem van Gulik、Renato Iannella和Patrik Faltstrom编写的，它为本文档的名称空间部分提供了基础。
Their work is gratefully acknowledged.
感谢他们的工作。
Authors' Addresses
作者地址
Peter Saint-Andre Filament P.O. Box 787 Parker, CO 80134 United States of America
美国科罗拉多州帕克市787号彼得·圣安德烈灯丝邮政信箱80134
Phone: +1 720 256 6756
Email: peter@filament.com
URI: <https://filament.com/>
Phone: +1 720 256 6756
Email: peter@filament.com
URI: <https://filament.com/>
John C. Klensin 1770 Massachusetts Ave, Ste 322 Cambridge, MA 02140 United States of America
美国马萨诸塞州剑桥市马萨诸塞大道1770号，邮编：322，邮编：02140
Phone: +1 617 245 1457
Email: john-ietf@jck.com
Phone: +1 617 245 1457
Email: john-ietf@jck.com