Subject: [urn] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-2141bis-00.txt

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 19:46:43 -0600

Folks, I must say I'm frustrated by the lack of progress in this
working group because I think it's important to move URNs along on the
standards track. I was going to provide detailed feedback on
draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn, but that too was frustrating because
I disagree with so many of the authorial decisions made in producing
that specification. Therefore I have decided to write an alternative
specification of 2141bis that I hope can serve as a starting point for
renewed discussion within the WG. Your feedback is welcome.

Peter

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-2141bis-00.txt
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 18:36:40 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

	Title           : Uniform Resource Name (URN) Syntax
	Author(s)       : Peter Saint-Andre
                          Ryan Moats
	Filename        : draft-saintandre-2141bis-00.txt
	Pages           : 8
	Date            : 2012-10-13

Abstract:
   A Uniform Resource Name (URN) is a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
   that is intended to serve as a persistent, location-independent
   resource identifier.  The general class of URNs is differentiated
   from all other URIs through the use of the 'urn' URI scheme.  This
   document defines the canonical syntax for URNs, guidelines for URN
   namespaces, requirements for URN presentation and transmission, and
   methods for determining URN equivalence.  This document obsoletes RFC
   2141.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-2141bis

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-2141bis-00

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:58:37 +0200 (MESZ)

> renewed discussion within the WG. Your feedback is welcome.

Peter (and all),
the situation of the WG has been discussed between our AD and the
WG co-chairs, with background exchanges with WG document (co-)authors,
during the past couple of weeks, just leading to an update to the WG
milestones, but unfortunately contributing to further delay to the
document work I'm occupied with.

Updates to all WG documents are in progress and should be out very
soon now.  Dealing with your counter-proposal at this stage would
further delay the finalizing of the rfc2141bis and rfc3406bis I-D
revisions I'm working on, with a likely negative impact on meeting
the revised first milestone; so please admit that I personally will
defer dealing with your I-D until the in-progress revised WG
documents are out.

Best regards,
  Alfred.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:15:16 -0400

For what it's worth, I appreciate that Peter has done this, and favour his
proposal (though I do have comments about it, which I'll get to soon).  The
working group, not the AD, decides what direction it will take, so this
isn't something I will make demands about... but I strongly encourage the
WG and the chairs to take Peter's proposal seriously.  I find the current
WG version to be far too verbose, and in a wrong direction.  If you really
think all that chat about history and background and motivation needs to be
published somewhere, I would rather see it put into the WG wiki.

Barry

On Sunday, October 14, 2012, Alfred HÎnes wrote:

> urn mailing list
> [email-masked] <javascript:;>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn
>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:46:37 -0600

> defer dealing with your I-D until the in-progress revised WG

And I will personally defer dealing with
draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn (expired for a month now) until you
update it.

By the way, was your message sent as a co-chair of the working group?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 17:42:12 -0700

Hi Peter,
>renewed discussion within the WG. Your feedback is welcome.

I like the lean approach of this alternative.  Thanks to Alfred for 
following up on the comments I sent a few months ago.  I prefer to be 
quiet about the level of idleness as I am usually incorrect about that. :-)

Regards,
-sm