Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lanthaler-profile-registry-01.txt

From: "Markus Lanthaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 20:46:24 +0200

On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:33 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Oh, sorry.
> I've no objections. The work seems to be needed, if I understand
> the situation correctly, and would appear to be within the working
> group's remit.
> It's not really my field, but I'm happy to devote a cycle or two
> for reviewing.

Thanks for your your support Dave.

Barry, Murray: How do we proceed? Is there anything I can/should do at this
point?

Thanks,
Markus

--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 15:57:59 -0700

Hi Markus, sorry for the delayed reply.

> Barry, Murray: How do we proceed? Is there anything I can/should do at this
There hasn't been much expression of interest in supporting this document
in terms of reviews.  Only one person other than you committed to doing so,
though a couple of people did say they felt this was procedurally the right
place to do the work.

I'll pose the question again: Does the WG feel that this is something we
should process here?  Are there people (other than Dave Cridland) willing
to commit time to doing reviews and commenting?

-MSK, co-chair

---

From: "Markus Lanthaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 19:15:33 -0700

> Hi Markus, sorry for the delayed reply.

No problem. I have been quite busy with other things myself as well.

> > Barry, Murray: How do we proceed? Is there anything I can/should
> > do at this point?
> 
> There hasn't been much expression of interest in supporting this
> document in terms of reviews.  Only one person other than you
> committed to doing so, though a couple of people did say they felt
> this was procedurally the right place to do the work.

Yes. Unfortunately that's true. If I understood Barry correctly, the
alternative would be to take the URN sub-namespace out and just request the
creation of the registry which could be done without the WG adopting it,
right?

> I'll pose the question again: Does the WG feel that this is something
> we should process here?  Are there people (other than Dave Cridland)
> willing to commit time to doing reviews and commenting?

Maybe it helps if I quickly sum up what this I-D is about.

First of all, this I-D establishes a registry for profile URIs as defined in
RFC6906. Since profile IRIs don't have to be dereferenceable I think it
makes sense to establish a registry which can be used to locate the
specification defining a specific profile URI.

The second thing this I-D does (and that's the reason why it needs to be
adopted by the WG) is to reserve a IETF URN sub-namespace
(urn:ietf:params:profile) that can be used in the future to define profile
URIs in RFCs. Those URIs would look as follows:
urn:ietf:params:profile:example

Thanks,
Markus

--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler