Subject: Gentle reminder [Fwd: Working Group -- work!]

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 16:10:19 -0400

As promised, a gentle reminder to the WG -- by August 18, I'd like
to hear if there are objections to taking on the following documents
in the working group.  They are presented as editorially-revised (not
technically modified) versions of documents that we've already had
in our scope.

        draft-ietf-urn-ddds-00.txt
                = the generic concept of a delegated hierarchy
                  for resolution

        draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds-database-00.txt
                = NAPTR -- i.e., how to use DNS to implement an
                  instance of the above

        draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-00.txt
                = using the NAPTR-based "DDDS" for URN and URI
                  resolution

Thanks,
Leslie.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Working Group -- work!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:48:12 -0400
From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Organization: Thinking Cat Enterprises
To: [email-masked]

Howdy,

So, here we are looking to wrap up our last documents and finish
the working group.

To refresh people's memory of where we're at, just over a year
ago, we submitted

Assignment Procedures for the URI Resolution using DNS (RFC2168)
Resolution of Uniform Resource Identifiers using the Domain Name System
The Naming Authority Pointer (NAPTR) DNS Resource Record

to the IESG to be put forward as RFCs (as BCP, Standard, and Standard,
respectively).  Such being the nature of IESG overload, it took
quite a few months before they got the necessary scrutiny, which
produced some useful suggested improvements. Such being the
nature of the universe at large, in the meantime other groups started
using bits of it (e.g., NAPTR) in very appropriate, but non-UR{N|I}
ways (e.g., ENUM).

This lead to a thought that the latter 2 documents, which are meant
to update and replace RFC2168, could be better expressed as 3
documents, separating out the generically-useful stuff from the
UR{N|I}-specific stuff so that it will be clearer how other apps
can use NAPTR in a consistent fashion.  (The first will be republished
as a revised document, should hit the I-D editor today).

Ultimately, it should also make it clearer how URN resolution can
move beyond DNS-based resolution, which is something we've maintained
was interesting/useful/necessary in the medium-to-long term.

Michael Mealling has put together some proposed documents, based
on that split.  They will soon hit the I-D archives (titles below),
and the split is encapsulated as follows:

        draft-ietf-urn-ddds-00.txt
                = the generic concept of a delegated hierarchy
                  for resolution

        draft-ietf-urn-dns-ddds-database-00.txt
                = NAPTR -- i.e., how to use DNS to implement an
                  instance of the above

        draft-ietf-urn-uri-res-ddds-00.txt
                = using the NAPTR-based "DDDS" for URN and URI
                  resolution

Michael will be forwarding the documents to the list with his own
remarks, but there is a larger question that I need answered as WG
chair.  Essentially, our goal as a WG is to fulfill our charter and
wind up.  The argument can be made that this goes beyond our mandate.
The counterargument can be made that it will allow us to finish
our work in a more complete fashion.  I'd like to hear people's
thoughts once they've read the documents in that light.

Consequences:
        . if we take it on, I'll be pushing for a tight timeline,
          so that this WG does wind up

        . if we don't take it on, we can consider pushing forward
          with simple revisions to the existing drafts

My personal opinion is that this is work in the right direction,
that it should move forward anyway, that it's close enough to what
we've done that it shouldn't be too much of a stretch, and that it
will benefit from the input of the whole WG (i.e., why I'd rather
this didn't get put to Michael to pursue as a personal effort).
But, YMMV, and I'd like to hear either way.

Over to you, Michael...

Leslie.

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"My body obeys Aristotelian laws of physics."
   -- ThinkingCat

Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------