RFC 5134

A Uniform Resource Name Namespace for the EPCglobal Electronic Product Code (EPC) and Related Standards ✨

Network Working Group: M. Mealling 📄 Request for Comments: 5134 🔢 Category: Informational 🧚 Author: M. Mealling, Refactored Networks, LLC 🎀 Date: January 2008 📅

This title block doesn't list anything this RFC obsoletes or updates, so there's no Obsoletes or Updates line to flag. 🙈

---

Status of This Memo 📝

This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. 💖

Abstract 🌸

Okay so this doc describes URN namespaces that identify all sorts of objects inside the EPCglobal system. That system is for tagging products in ecommerce and supply chain management. 🛒✨

1. Introduction 🦋

Okay bestie, so the EPCglobal Architecture Framework [6] is basically a set of specs for reading, managing, and acting on object codes and other sensor data as physical objects travel through a supply chain. 🚚 Events and metadata about those physical objects get swapped through EPCglobal Electronic Product Code Information Services (EPCIS), which are basically web services that follow agreed-upon schema and interfaces. It's giving organized 💅

Every object the framework tracks gets one or more managed identifiers. Lowkey, a lot of these identification systems were around way before the Internet got big. One famous example is the Global Trade Item Number, or GTIN [7]. GTINs are everywhere in global commerce, and GS1 manages them. 🌍 For the EPCglobal Architecture Framework to use the Internet to the fullest, the GTIN namespace (plus others, like Global Location Numbers (GLNs), Serialized Shipping Container Code (SSCC), etc. [7]) needs to be directly compatible with the URI family of identifiers. 🔗

GTINs, GLNs, and SSCCs are all managed by GS1. Their use inside the EPCglobal Architecture Framework is managed by the GS1 subsidiary known as EPCglobal, Inc. 🏢 For these identification systems, and maybe future ones too, this doc requests a single Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace ID (NID): 'epc'. 🙌 Each of the identifier namespaces mentioned will have its own sub-space under the top-level 'epc' NID. 🌈

The framework also needs new namespaces for naming its system components, beyond the physical object identifiers. 🧩 A lot of its interfaces are XML [11] based, so they'll need naming schemes for their XML schema [9] and various namespaces [10]. For those uses, this doc requests another Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace ID (NID): 'epcglobal'. Each specification or system component inside the EPCglobal Architecture Framework will get its own sub-space under the top-level 'epcglobal' NID. 💜

Since the framework is built for widespread, general use, this namespace spec is a formal one, and the namespace IDs being requested are 'epc' and 'epcglobal'. ⭐ It's important to note that the sub-namespaces of the 'epc' NID are explicitly meant to name real, physical objects and/or corporeal entities. 🍓 By contrast, sub-namespaces of the 'epcglobal' NID name logical or software constructs, like schema namespaces. 💻

2. 'epc' Registration Template 💖

Namespace ID:

"epc"

Registration Information:

Registration Version Number: 1
Registration Date: 2008-01-16

Declared registrant of the namespace:

EPCglobal, Inc. is a subsidiary of GS1
Princeton Pike Corporate Center
1009 Lenox Drive, Suite 202
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, USA
bhogan@epcglobalinc.org
Tel: +1-609-620-4585

Declaration of structure:

The normative spec for the structure of the 'epc' namespace is "EPC Tag Data Standards" [5]. The examples below are not normative, so don't treat them as the rules. 🎀

The 'epc' namespace is a set of sub-namespaces that can be extended in the future. The ABNF [2] below defines how the sub-namespaces get identified, plus any restrictions on their syntax. Anything not defined below can be found in RFC 2141 [1]. 🧠

EPC-URN     = "urn:epc:" sub-ns-name ":" sub-ns
sub-ns-name = let-num [ 1*let-num-hyp ]
sub-ns      = 1*<URN chars>
let-num     = upper / lower / number
let-num-hyp = upper / lower / number / "-"
upper       = %x41-5A ; "A" - "Z"
lower       = %x61-7A ; "a" - "z"
number      = "0" / "1" / "2" / "3" / "4" / "5" / "6" / "7" /
              "8" / "9"

For example, the 'sgtin' sub-namespace has this definition. This ABNF is non-normative, so it's just for vibes and understanding. ✨

SGTIN-URI        = "urn:epc:id:sgtin:" SGTINURIBody
SGTINURIBody     = 2*(PaddedNumericComponent ".") NumericComponent
NumericComponent = ZeroComponent / NonZeroComponent
ZeroComponent    = "0"
NonZeroComponent = NonZeroDigit *Digit
PaddedNumericComponent = *Digit
Digit = "0" / NonZeroDigit
NonZeroDigit = "1" / "2" / "3" / "4" / "5" / "6" / "7" / "8" / "9"

This works out to a namespace with three period-separated series of digits. 🔢

                     urn:epc:id:sgtin:900100.0003456.1234567

The first series is a company prefix. The second is a product reference assigned by that company. The third is a serial number for one specific instance of their product. 📦 Note that leading zeros are significant, so don't drop them, bestie! 🙅‍♀️

Relevant ancillary documentation:

The standards that define the EPCglobal Architecture Framework, and the processes for creating new sub-namespaces, are managed by EPCglobal, Inc. You can find them on its website. Several sub-namespaces are defined in the "EPC Tag Data Standards" [5]. 📚

Identifier uniqueness considerations:

The namespaces that make up the 'epc' namespace are all managed by an organization with almost 50 years of namespace management experience. 👑 In every case, existing or new, the uniqueness of each namespace is an inherent part of the EPCglobal Architecture Framework. 🔒

Identifier persistence considerations:

The assignment process guarantees that names are not reassigned, and that the binding between the name and its resource is permanent, regardless of any standards or organizational changes. 💎

Process of identifier assignment:

Names get assigned by the EPCglobal standards publication process, and by any entities that EPCglobal sub-delegates to. It's important to note that in many cases the names assigned will explicitly denote physical objects, not an electronic representation of that object. 🥹

Process of identifier resolution:

Certain sub-namespaces get resolved through the Object Naming Service, defined in "Object Naming Service (ONS) Version 1.0" [4]. That's a valid implementation of the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System defined in RFC 3401 [3]. 🔍

Rules for Lexical Equivalence:

The entire URN is case-sensitive. 🔠

Conformance with URN Syntax:

No additional characters are reserved, except as noted in the ABNF above. ✅

Validation mechanism:

For each sub-namespace there will be namespace-specific rules for determining validity. In each case, go check the appropriate EPCglobal-maintained documentation. 🧐

Scope:

Global 🌎

6. Community Considerations ✨

okay so bestie, this part is lowkey my favourite 🥹🌸 The EPCglobal Architecture Framework is meant to bring the Internet to the world of supply chain management and beyond 🌍✨ It can tie physical objects to their virtual descriptions, which means it has all kinds of wide-ranging uses for the average Internet user 🦋 So the intent is that this namespace, and the whole EPCglobal Architecture Framework, treats the entire Internet as its community. No cap, that's a whole main character energy scope 💅👑

7. Security Considerations 🔐

okay this section is giving serious, and I respect it 💀 The EPCglobal Architecture Framework is built almost entirely on Internet and Web standards, so the security impact of each underlying technology should be checked for weaknesses and threats 🕵️‍♀️ The big worry is that these names identify physical things that can be super valuable 💎 That means the temptation to spoof metadata about the identifier (its cost, its size, etc.) is going to be way stronger 😭 So digital signatures, secure resolution mechanisms, and trust relationships are very fundamental to the whole system 🫶 Not optional vibes, literally the foundation 🔥

8. References 📚

8.1. Normative References 🎀

[1] Moats, R., "URN Syntax", RFC 2141, May 1997.

[2] Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.

[3] Mealling, M., "Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (DDDS) Part One: The Comprehensive DDDS", RFC 3401, October 2002.

[4] EPCglobal, Inc., "EPCglobal Network Object Name Service (ONS) 1.0", August 2003.

[5] EPCglobal, Inc., "EPC(tm) Tag Data Standards Version 1.3", February 2004.

[6] Traub, K., Allgair, G., Barthe, H., Burstein, L., Garrett, J., Hogan, B., Rodrigues, B., Sarma, S., Schmidt, J., Schramek, C., Stewart, R., and K. Suen, "The EPCglobal Architecture Framework", July 2005.

[7] GS1, "GS1 General Specifications v7.1", January 2007.

[8] EPCglobal, Inc., "The Application Level Events (ALE) Specification, Version 1.0", September 2005.

8.2. Informative References 🧚

[9] Thompson, H., Maloney, M., Beech, D., and N. Mendelsohn, "XML Schema Part 1: Structures Second Edition", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-xmlschema-1-20041028, October 2004, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028>.

[10] Layman, A., Tobin, R., Bray, T., and D. Hollander, "Namespaces in XML 1.1", World Wide Web Consortium FirstEdition REC-xml- names11-20040204, February 2004, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-names11-20040204>.

[11] Bray, T., Maler, E., Yergeau, F., Sperberg-McQueen, C., and J. Paoli, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Third Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium FirstEdition REC-xml-20040204, February 2004, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204>.

---

Author's Address 🖊️

Michael Mealling Refactored Networks, LLC 1635 Old Hwy 41 Suite 112, Box 138 Kennesaw, GA 30152 US

Phone: +1 678 581 9656 EMail: michael@refactored-networks.com URI: http://www.refactored-networks.com

Full Copyright Statement ©️

Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property 💜

The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.