From stpeter@stpeter.im Sat Oct 13 18:46:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A1511E80A2 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 18:46:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.008 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.459, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_TOWRITE=1.05, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tRSRCG8qg2Rn for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 18:46:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC8BF11E809A for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 18:46:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.7] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E2C384011B for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 19:49:09 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <507A1983.6070308@stpeter.im> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 19:46:43 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "urn@ietf.org" References: <20121014013640.21248.98685.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20121014013640.21248.98685.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20121014013640.21248.98685.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [urn] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-2141bis-00.txt X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 01:46:47 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 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: internet-drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org 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 I-D-Announce@ietf.org 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlB6GYMACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxZSgCdGF50c4p+XuupQsIEKdHAOUCf suUAoKGKeGLhKROCp81sYDQjblvV+T4w =Ycox -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de Sun Oct 14 10:00:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 917B621F8452 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:00:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_TOWRITE=1.05, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BSIPzrowcUqk for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:00:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F3E21F84D5 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA027763919; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:58:39 +0200 Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id SAA14825; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:58:37 +0200 (MESZ) From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= Message-Id: <201210141658.SAA14825@TR-Sys.de> To: stpeter@stpeter.im Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:58:37 +0200 (MESZ) In-Reply-To: <507A1983.6070308@stpeter.im> from Peter Saint-Andre at Oct "13, " 2012 "07:46:43" pm X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [urn] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-2141bis-00 X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 17:00:52 -0000 Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > 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 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 barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Sun Oct 14 16:15:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B67D21F844C for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:15:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.401 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.775, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_TOWRITE=1.05, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pkPs4wWo5hYA for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:15:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E65321F8442 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so3384094lam.31 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:15:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ogOYon8otbnL914j37fBcJrLRYDX8Fz+Dzc64rI1HN0=; b=vux3kJnCRxUyT4wzTCFWCKT+YFn2eOd+gaMwRkKBfh5KkJj7+bRM3mK/flqnLjqJOO VuhvKpL4SmeNNa6cibZpjVKmuADjgl0VbZycRKAVtNfp89OsF9NYlzrZ/ElLW9D4vlRP W7gun3Vaa3avsugqkmZ9NCsl1clwucZtU4xXGnf/4NfkrxK8Uai6jOQmFWb0nT899W+c 0/obqpHN19zF6nobUHeL2mmVY5omg+k+JMtjhHSyyxRYXLOvu8m+pZGGHzzQ5ebXs4N8 FxLKO8LKxQmi6ykRHahTZkMA9lFi6aa93WbosQxbzdDITlN6VtvXpXwX5GRwIhwBhdyW ZVNw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.105.33 with SMTP id gj1mr8547336lab.49.1350256516989; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.150.194 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:15:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201210141658.SAA14825@TR-Sys.de> References: <507A1983.6070308@stpeter.im> <201210141658.SAA14825@TR-Sys.de> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:15:16 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: hIADR2rQwYus2Twl8DIjbo4KkzM Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alfred_H=CEnes?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d040716e30d039204cc0d18b1 Cc: "urn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [urn] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-2141bis-00 X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:15:19 -0000 --f46d040716e30d039204cc0d18b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 H=CEnes wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > > 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 > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > urn mailing list > urn@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn > --f46d040716e30d039204cc0d18b1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 soo= n). =A0The working group, not the AD, decides what direction it will take, = so this isn't something I will make demands about... but I strongly enc= ourage the WG and the chairs to take Peter's proposal seriously. =A0I f= ind the current WG version to be far too verbose, and in a wrong direction.= =A0If you really think all that chat about history and background and moti= vation needs to be published somewhere, I would rather see it put into the = WG wiki.

Barry

On Sunday, October 14, 2012, Alfred H=CEnes wr= ote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> 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

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. =A0Dealing 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,
=A0 Alfred.

_______________________________________________
urn mailing list
urn@ietf.org
htt= ps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn
--f46d040716e30d039204cc0d18b1-- From stpeter@stpeter.im Sun Oct 14 18:46:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA7F21F852A for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:46:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.841 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.841 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.592, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_TOWRITE=1.05, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kFB5+vTI6VhU for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:46:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F98721F8523 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:46:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.5] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D4EC44011B; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:49:07 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <507B6AFD.10506@stpeter.im> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:46:37 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?QWxmcmVkIO+/vQ==?= References: <201210141658.SAA14825@TR-Sys.de> In-Reply-To: <201210141658.SAA14825@TR-Sys.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [urn] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-2141bis-00 X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 01:46:40 -0000 On 10/14/12 10:58 AM, Alfred � wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> 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 > > 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. 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@resistor.net Sun Oct 14 19:07:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CC6B21F853C for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:07:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.069 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.069 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.520, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_TOWRITE=1.05, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bDz2J7pNw5zc for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:07:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71BE21F853B for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:07:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9F2775k019204; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:07:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1350266831; bh=moIrWHynHEQ4BgtH1+AXPEFEybx06eS7l7f+J4gd39Y=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=lw1w7woW4N16jKH/D4zij1Esminb6HFx7LSboFHEheA2rHk7byi58QxHHWlZZevAz sRY5Pz3q+I67CsdmLEZbMJfXoEsFNfcCgjPQZDkHwjak2hzRxmd0XSqcrCeL6esaLE yIf8txCNUlTHsj8zS4T6SzTpKgpkV9sF7ntacvSk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1350266831; i=@resistor.net; bh=moIrWHynHEQ4BgtH1+AXPEFEybx06eS7l7f+J4gd39Y=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=sXZbXMDjLzP25shGGw9de4w8GjM+UIcqkhxcBeuyGUTqL5mCr7G2QQPx2YwKkdmYe DOuj+auEeZn4A7wdAJBzgxl6qCVwtE8Qpvd9pLzT7EcGGE0YKfjdtRC/7J1M7kweWN FmevIxJdfhHOIC30ZzekF1oOZEV4+tXSP9eaIk18= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121014173251.0c043f78@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 17:42:12 -0700 To: Peter Saint-Andre From: SM In-Reply-To: <507A1983.6070308@stpeter.im> References: <20121014013640.21248.98685.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <507A1983.6070308@stpeter.im> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [urn] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-2141bis-00.txt X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 02:07:13 -0000 Hi Peter, At 18:46 13-10-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >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. 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 From stpeter@stpeter.im Mon Oct 15 09:02:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C669011E80E9 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:02:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.579 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pCOHga0wHLI5 for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:02:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4CD311E808A for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:02:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [64.101.72.58] (unknown [64.101.72.58]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A41134011B for ; Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:04:41 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <507C3382.6040703@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:02:10 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "urn@ietf.org" References: <20121015160019.16944.35217.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20121015160019.16944.35217.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20121015160019.16944.35217.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [urn] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-urnbis-2141bis-00.txt X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 16:02:11 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 draft-saintandre-2141bis wasn't showing up at http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/urnbis/ so I have submitted the same document renamed as draft-saintandre-urnbis-2141bis to rectify the problem. Peter - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-urnbis-2141bis-00.txt Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:00:19 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org 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-urnbis-2141bis-00.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2012-10-15 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-urnbis-2141bis There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-urnbis-2141bis-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlB8M4IACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyFuwCg3/zDFUYZ8MJAHpubGSfzd21X eAoAn0/y7rAZ7cCMt08KW1+uibT6G+YP =v/5N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Oct 16 11:10:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F2E21F89D5; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:10:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.567 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Jyicmdhzqs0; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:10:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BFE421F8747; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:10:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20121016181042.4662.579.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:10:42 -0700 Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03.txt X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:10:42 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names, Revised Working G= roup of the IETF. Title : Uniform Resource Name (URN) Syntax Author(s) : Alfred Hoenes Filename : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03.txt Pages : 36 Date : 2012-10-16 Abstract: Uniform Resource Names (URNs) are intended to serve as persistent, location-independent, resource identifiers. This document serves as the foundation of the 'urn' URI Scheme according to RFC 3986 and sets forward the canonical syntax for URNs, which subdivides URNs into "namespaces". A discussion of both existing legacy and new namespaces and requirements for URN presentation and transmission are presented. Finally, there is a discussion of URN equivalence and how to determine it. This document supersedes RFC 2141. The requirements and procedures for URN Namespace registration documents are set forth in a companion document, RFC 3406bis (BCP 66). The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de Tue Oct 16 11:49:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A0D21F87EC for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:49:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.337 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.337 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.362, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, FB_NO_MORE_ADS=1.174, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8IHmpf47tmff for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE8021F86AA for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA060493249; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:47:30 +0200 Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id UAA17444; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:47:28 +0200 (MESZ) From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= Message-Id: <201210161847.UAA17444@TR-Sys.de> To: urn@ietf.org Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:47:28 +0200 (MESZ) In-Reply-To: <20121016181042.4662.579.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> from "internet-drafts@ietf.org" at Oct "16, " 2012 "11:10:42" am X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03 X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:49:49 -0000 URNbis folks, eventually, the long expected new version of the rfc2141bis draft is available from the Internet-Draft archives. Speaking as the draft editor: This draft version incorporates the changes proposed on my "A way forward ..." proposal posted to this list on 5 July and archived at http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg01776.html, taking into account the feedback received for this (in so far as it related directly to this draft), and it contains many additional changes based on an evaluation of all on-list and off-list comments received since the publication of the -02 version. For a detailed summary of changes, please see below. Please study this draft in detail and send draft text related comments. The plan is to issue one additional draft version next month before proceeding to WG Last Call for it. My highest priority for the next days is bringing out the pending updates to the other WG documents as well; so please admit that I'll likely still have to defer any discussion followup until this task is completed. The aligned -03 version of the rfc3406bis draft will be posted next, and it's proactively already referenced in the -03 version of the rfc2141bis draft -- so please don't complain about that temporary mis-ref. On 16 Oct 2012 11:10:42 -0700, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names, Revised > Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Uniform Resource Name (URN) Syntax > Author(s) : Alfred Hoenes > Filename : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03.txt > Pages : 36 Note: Please discount for 3 pg. boilerplate & ToC, almost 3 pg. of References, and almost 6 pages of change History. :-) > Date : 2012-10-16 > > Abstract: > Uniform Resource Names (URNs) are intended to serve as persistent, > location-independent, resource identifiers. This document serves as > the foundation of the 'urn' URI Scheme according to RFC 3986 and sets > forward the canonical syntax for URNs, which subdivides URNs into > "namespaces". A discussion of both existing legacy and new > namespaces and requirements for URN presentation and transmission are > presented. Finally, there is a discussion of URN equivalence and how > to determine it. This document supersedes RFC 2141. > > The requirements and procedures for URN Namespace registration > documents are set forth in a companion document, RFC 3406bis > (BCP 66). > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > This new draft version contains the following incremental change summary as an Appendix, amended with rationale for some non-changes: -------- snip -------- D.7. Changes from WG Draft -02 to WG Draft -03 Added text in s1.1 to reflect a comment from SM on other, legacy interpretations of "URN". Added note in old s1.2 to reflect importance of the name binding established by a URN (derived from list discussion on other topic, Keith Moore et al.). However, (despite comments from SM and PSA) preserved excerpts there to keep document self-contained and avoid normative down-references (as discussed during WG chartering process and pointed out in the third para of old s1.3). Doing so should also help to avoid another future recurrence of the discussion on these topics that has consumed a lot of resources unnecessarily during the WG formation process. Swapped s1.2 and s1.3 (note from SM); however, for logical reasons, motivation (part of s1.1) needs to stay in the text before the objectives derived thereof (now s1.2). Material on query part enhanced (new subsection 2.3); structure of query part formally specified with a rather liberal syntax (could be more restrictive, if WG prefers); IANA registry of URN query keywords established, with two initial entries for the global scope "s" and "c" keywords now specified in s2.3.1 and s2.3.2. To avoid further confusion (as seen on the list discussion), this I-D uses the term "fragment" only for the trailing component in the Generic URI Syntax and the semantics associated with it in RFC 3986; otherwise this I-D talks about "components" of structured resources. Material on fragment part heavily revised and stripped down, put in new subsection 2.4. New text is intended to reflect least common denominator of list discussion; i.e., mostly just enable usage by specific URN Namespace and otherwise point to RFC 3986 and RFC 3406bis. Namespace designers now have three options to design-in component resource designation (if warranted for the namespace), whichever is the best fit for their underlying identifier system: (1) media- specific designation using fragment part, (2) media-independent, abstract designation using query part (to be dealt with by resolution system, not resolution client), and (3) media-independent designation via assignment of distinct NSSs to component resources. (That is being elaborated upon to a greater extent in the -03 version of the rfc3406bis I-D.) Added text to percent-encoding considerations (Bengt Neiss' concerns). Amended text on support of existing identifier systems (s3), based on various comments received. Revised part of text in s5 and s6 on lexical/functional equivalence to reflect the new specification for query and fragment (new s2.3, s2.4) and to address several comments received; changed s5.1 accordingly. In spite of the challenges raised by serious evidence of improper management practices for the ISBN system and hence the URN:ISBN Namespace (Lars Svensson), the I-D still contains one (hypothetical) example based on URN:ISBN; this is being thought acceptable because it is in the tradition of earlier documents and we can expect that every potential reader of the memo will have an understanding what ISBNs are for (or should be). Modified title of s7.1 to avoid clash with new s9.1. Added IANA Considerations for "URN Query Parameters" registries (s9.2). Acknowledgements expanded. Amended Appendix A with text regarding usage. Filled in details in Appendix D.1; added this Appendix D.7. Former Appendix E (guide to IETF document repositories) and pointer to it removed (comment from SM). Multiple editorial enhancements and fixes. -------- snip -------- Also, the changes since RFC 2141 are now summed up in an Appendix of the draft as follows: -------- snip -------- D.1. Essential Changes from RFC 2141 Expanded Introduction to cover background material frequently requested by interested parties not well acquainted with RFCs and past/present work in the IETF, in particular prospective URN Namespace stakeholders and applicants for URN Namespace registrations. The material included also serves to avoid normative downrefs to legacy RFCs that are very unlikely to be progressed on the Standards Track in the foreseeable future. Document references updated and split; Normative References now only to Full Internet Standards to allow for future progress of this memo on the IETF Standards Track. Formal syntax now specified using ABNF (STD 68), using productions from Generic URI Syntax (STD 66) and STD 68. NID Syntax slightly more restrictive than in RFC 2141 (compatible with existing and in-progress NID registrations). NSS syntax now allows "&" and "~" to align URN syntax with generic rule from STD 66; an ambiguity in the formal rules and incompatibilities between the formal rules and the prose description in RFC 2141 have been straightened out ("%" no more allowed outside percent-encoding triples, other characters no more admitted by formal syntax rules). Use of query and fragment part with URNs now specified, mostly by reference to STD 66. Syntactical pattern for query part defined; IANA registry for query keywords in URN references established. This document also performs the outstanding formal registration of the 'urn' URI scheme. Supplemental material in Appendices documents considerations and decisions made in the development of this memo. -------- snip -------- Best regards, Alfred. From sm@resistor.net Tue Oct 16 12:31:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A66B21F8966 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:31:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.586 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EM2IjbM9P+qY for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F5B921F88FA for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9GJVPfG002877; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:31:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1350415892; bh=OMnFpDOsc853SoOGp/CnqAgHcajqkgC8hjDzQ1ANWHg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=MdYxwzg2DGNSAHWAHYLXIeGcnR6CL0TNv6bYX9/Kwt/z2iZ0Mj6I16b0M3ali+9sf WqbE0S/5XZEvHhJDQ89UJa8xMa6EbPyNWcoWpMJQTaEvWMARV9mDBqYo4zr1uS+VZT KH7kW9fsfQE5SU3aBbXWQJSv4qjgENKQbfE+jgX8= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1350415892; i=@resistor.net; bh=OMnFpDOsc853SoOGp/CnqAgHcajqkgC8hjDzQ1ANWHg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=rzw8/nbo0sX1OaMF6N6Pe6ejSFAZgzauwhMRYFdgl/K+MuDBtR3CTrSkUYYpOy8ue I+4NBcLveU/fTWYpeOtZe8SNIVmmlnOcRLdWf1kP97xHDk6ryWdt1hO52U1ZtXRrbs xw2ak/HviqiMMtGTkr+VICGTM33SABErkPJz8MYI= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121016121434.0a932b90@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:29:24 -0700 To: Alfred From: SM In-Reply-To: <201210161847.UAA17444@TR-Sys.de> References: <20121016181042.4662.579.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <201210161847.UAA17444@TR-Sys.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03 X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:31:35 -0000 Hi Alfred, At 11:47 16-10-2012, Alfred wrote: >Speaking as the draft editor: > >This draft version incorporates the changes proposed on my >"A way forward ..." proposal posted to this list on 5 July and >archived at > http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg01776.html, >taking into account the feedback received for this (in so far as >it related directly to this draft), and it contains many additional >changes based on an evaluation of all on-list and off-list comments >received since the publication of the -02 version. I'll be candid. I took a quick look at the draft. About a third of the text in draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03 is non-technical material. When I compare this draft with the one submitted by Peter Saint-Andre, I am inclined to pick the latter. I am ok if you take off-list comments. I think that it is better to discuss about changes on-list. BTW, you get a +2 for the extensive notes in the Changes section. You are going for a Working Group Last Call during the Turkey Day/Shopping season. It's not the best time in my humble opinion. I understand that I am skidding on process ice by saying this. May I humbly suggest that you discuss the matter of the drafts with Peter? Broad agreement would be my preference. Regards, -sm From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Oct 17 08:03:51 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A609D21F852B for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:03:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N1L-i1wFRhuC for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E94F21F84B6 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [64.101.72.58] (unknown [64.101.72.58]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14D5F4012A; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:06:27 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <507EC057.5000909@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 08:27:35 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM References: <20121016181042.4662.579.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <201210161847.UAA17444@TR-Sys.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20121016121434.0a932b90@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121016121434.0a932b90@resistor.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03 X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:03:51 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/16/12 1:29 PM, SM wrote: > Broad agreement would be my preference. Mine, too, for sure. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlB+wFcACgkQNL8k5A2w/vz2VwCePBULE1TL+SpD7IMlxYoVLCTD c24An0pkmvPxVYlqyG0Uv59ioBNue4on =u2Q7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Oct 18 21:44:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D869411E808A; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:44:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.527 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9bkIp+zJ6ZyZ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:44:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6391F0C3A; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:44:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20121019044413.4650.28858.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:44:13 -0700 Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-03.txt X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:44:14 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names, Revised Working G= roup of the IETF. Title : Defining Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespaces Author(s) : Alfred Hoenes Filename : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-03.txt Pages : 36 Date : 2012-10-18 Abstract: RFC 2141bis formalizes the concept of Uniform Resource Names (URNs) for persistent, location-independent, resource identifiers within the generic URI system specified in RFC 3986. To structure and organize URN usage, RFC 2141bis specifies a hierarchy that divides the set of possible URNs into "URN Namespaces" that can be individually defined and managed. URN Namespaces allow to map existing identifier systems into the URN scheme and thereby make available generic, network-based resolution services for the identified resources (documents, artifacts, and other objects) and metadata related to them. To this end, URN Namespaces need to be defined and specified in a comparable manner, and their Namespace Identifiers (NIDs) need to be registered with IANA, so that naming conflicts are avoided and implementers of services can follow a structured approach in support of various namespaces, guided by the registry to the related documents and the particularities of specific namespaces, as described in these Namespace registration documents. This RFC serves as a design guideline for stakeholders of URN Namespaces and authors of URN Namespace definition and registration documents. It describes the process to be followed to register a URN Namespace with IANA and the essential content of such documents. This document supersedes and replaces RFC 3406. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-= 03 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de Thu Oct 18 22:00:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62CCF21F859C for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:00:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.043 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.043 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.706, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6brH8e7nQsXf for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:00:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA3CC21F859A for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:00:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA098412683; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:58:03 +0200 Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id GAA22622; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:57:58 +0200 (MESZ) From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= Message-Id: <201210190457.GAA22622@TR-Sys.de> To: urn@ietf.org Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:57:58 +0200 (MESZ) In-Reply-To: <20121019044413.4650.28858.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> from "internet-drafts@ietf.org" at Oct "18, " 2012 "09:44:13" pm X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-03 X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 05:00:26 -0000 URNbis folks, eventually, the long expected new version of the rfc3406bis draft is also available from the Internet-Draft archives. Speaking as the draft editor: This draft version incorporates the changes proposed on my "A way forward ..." proposal posted to this list on 5 July and archived at http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg01776.html, taking into account the feedback received for this (in so far as it related directly to this draft), and it contains many additional changes based on an evaluation of all on-list and off-list comments received since the publication of the -02 version. For a detailed summary of changes, please see below. Please study this draft in detail and send draft text related comments. The plan is to issue one additional draft version next month before proceeding to WG Last Call for it. My highest priority for the next days remains bringing out the pending updates to the namespace-specific WG documents as well; so please admit that I'll likely still have to defer any followup discussion until this task is completed. A few minutes ago, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names, Revised > Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Defining Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespaces > Author(s) : Alfred Hoenes > Filename : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-03.txt > Pages : 36 Note: Please discount for ~13 pg. Boilerplate, References, Change log > Date : 2012-10-18 > > Abstract: > RFC 2141bis formalizes the concept of Uniform Resource Names (URNs) > for persistent, location-independent, resource identifiers within the > generic URI system specified in RFC 3986. To structure and organize > URN usage, RFC 2141bis specifies a hierarchy that divides the set of > possible URNs into "URN Namespaces" that can be individually defined > and managed. URN Namespaces allow to map existing identifier systems > into the URN scheme and thereby make available generic, network-based > resolution services for the identified resources (documents, > artifacts, and other objects) and metadata related to them. > > To this end, URN Namespaces need to be defined and specified in a > comparable manner, and their Namespace Identifiers (NIDs) need to be > registered with IANA, so that naming conflicts are avoided and > implementers of services can follow a structured approach in support > of various namespaces, guided by the registry to the related > documents and the particularities of specific namespaces, as > described in these Namespace registration documents. > > This RFC serves as a design guideline for stakeholders of URN > Namespaces and authors of URN Namespace definition and registration > documents. It describes the process to be followed to register a URN > Namespace with IANA and the essential content of such documents. > > This document supersedes and replaces RFC 3406. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-03 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-03 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > This new draft version contains the following incremental change summary as an Appendix, amended with rationale for some non-changes: -------- snip -------- C.5. Changes from URNbis WG I-D -02 to -03 Due to the scattered discussion of the previous draft version, the items below not only list effected changes but also give rationale for where suggested changes have not been applied. Document title shortened to better reflect entire purpose of document. Abstract: revised and shortened (comments from SM). Introduction: Rephrased 1st para to put emphasis on name binding property (derived from list discussion on related topic, Keith Moore et al.). Amended / modified text to better reflect the intended audience of the memo and its contents, and to accommodate the evolution of the rfc2141bis I-D. Wordsmithing Assumption: "_well_ recognized" (Lars Svensson). Contrary to a proposal (PSA), the draft text keeps the Assumptions separate from the consequences/conclusions drawn from these; the registration process is what is to be followed to maintain the assumption, not the 2nd assumption itself. Text reworked based on comments (SM, PSA, et al.). The single paragraph with a historical perspective on previous documents is deemed rather helpful for the intended audience (note the confusing artifact caused by RFC Editor mistake, giving the replacement of a BCP a different BCP number!), and it serves to capture important motivations for the document revision effort; therefore, it is kept in the draft. The pargraph describing the purpose of the document has been rephrased. It isn't barely about an IANA procedure, it is also about what prospective registrants are well advised to consider before deciding on a new Namespace and the processes they have to implement, and finally capturing the results in a URN Namespace registration document. Section 2: Amended by text describing the 3 methods available to Namespace designers / stakeholdes to make component resources of structured resources identifiable/accessible. Some existing text reworded based on comments (SM et al.). It has been argued that text on URN Namespaces in s2 would better be placed into the rfc2141bis document, but on the other hand, it has been argued that text introducing and discussing Namespace properties from rfc2141bis should better be placed into this memo. To keep both documents as much self-contained as practical, text on URN Namespaces of specific interest to prospective stakeholders of URN Namespaces and authors of registration documents has been kept in s2 of this draft, and new such material has been added there. (The rfc2141bis draft now points to this.) s3.3: Reworded "benefit" clause to clarify distinction between the community interested in a new Namespace and the Internet community at large (corollary to comments on and revision of s4.4.2.). s4: (dealing with comments from SM, PSA) The justification for the need to consider and specify registration maintenance procedures has been in RFC 3406; the text from there has been updated according to our chartered, to update for RFC 5226. This matter needs to be taken into account by prospective Namespace owners, and thus the text makes sense in this document. Reorganization of subsequent text made it logically necessary to include into this section a high level description of the urn-nid@ietf.org list. The nominal review period is left a four weeks in this draft revision, but a Note has been added to s4 indicating that this is an upper limit to accommodate headroom, whereas the designated expert(s) may always come to a conclusion earlier. Repeated references to IANA have been consolidated. The common shorthand designation "IANA experts" for the designated expert(s) supporting IANA in the maintenance of the URN NID registry is now being avoided. s4.1: No technical changes. The continued use of the "X-" prefix for Experimental Namespaces does not violate RFC 6648 because this is legacy practice, experimental NIDs are not being registered, and this memo again prohibits the use of Experimental Namespaces in the open Internet. s4.3: Text reorganized, incorporating material from s4.4.4 (see below). The text on the (modified) "IETF Review" policy has been upgraded from RFC 3406 (and thereby effectively shortened). It serves to give concise information to the expected primary audience of the document, applicants for Namespaces, which according to experience are rather unlikely inclined to read the full RFC 5226, but just need to know what is said in the single sentence in the draft. Further, this sentence supplies the background information for the following sentences and thus improved the readability of the text. Therefore, no substantive changes applied here. s4.4: text amended to avoid confusion about registration template. s4.4.1 and s4.4.2: Heavily reworked based on discussion (Leslie, PSA, Juha, et al.). Bullet lists now point to clauses of the registration template where working on the text to be supplied there will likely give insights to answer the basic questions to be answered here. A NOTE now tentatively allows to include a combined Namespace and Community Considerations section into a Namespace registration document, if the expert review admits it. s4.4.3: The first sentence lays the foundation for the subsequent sentences and gives the appropriate reference (to BCP 72); hence it is regarded as non-disposable -- no change. Repeated negative experience has motivated the addition of a hint that emphasizes that WG documents including URN Namespace definitions need to go through the urn-nid process before they can be forwarded to the IESG (document writeup requirement). s4, s4.4.4: Last paragraph ostensibly belonging to s4.4.4 moved to end of s4, then adjusted to context. (The RFC format doesn't allow to recognize the continuation of a higher-level section after the inclusion of sub-sections.) s4.3, s4.4.4: The checklist of syntactical constraints for NIDs of formal namespaces was intended as a checklist for IANA; following comments from Lars Svensson, it has been moved from s4.4.4 to s4.3 and related text has been modified accordingly. s4.4.4: substantially revised (comments from Lars Svensson et al.). IANA Cons. (s6): Added request to IANA to clarify the procedures for Formal NIDs in the list of ptorocol parameter registries. Updated and expanded Acknowledgements. References: RFC 3339 demoted to Informational; you don't need to read it to insert the date into the registration template, the applicable pattern is shown there directly; this change avoids a potential normative downref. Clarified role of Appendices. Appendix A: Clarified purpose of the explanations in curly braces embedded in the annotated registration template. Use term "clause" throughout. Removed Notes from template that served to explain previous changes. Template now provided in both annotated and bare form (suggestion from SM); once finalized, both forms will be provided in xml2rfc format (location to be decided: IETF Tools and/or IANA). Added new items to registration template for Purpose of Namespace (short description of named resources), applicability of part and supported query instructions (if any), and applicability of part. Appendix B: The document organization is carried over from RFC 3406. Modified title of App. B, declared it Informative. This Appendix C.5 added; previous Appendix D (Issues) dropped. Multiple editorial fixes and enhancements. -------- snip -------- The summary "Essential Changes since RFC 3406" Appendix will be filled in during the next update cycle. Best regards, Alfred. From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Oct 19 07:42:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2853B21F84F6; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:42:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.515 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nW6tp96Of7F6; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 833A021F847B; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:42:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20121019144213.29182.14973.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:42:13 -0700 Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-03.txt X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:42:14 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names, Revised Working G= roup of the IETF. Title : Using International Standard Book Numbers as Uniform Res= ource Names Author(s) : Maarit Huttunen Juha Hakala Alfred Hoenes Filename : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-03.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2012-10-19 Abstract: The International Standard Book Number, ISBN, is a widely used identifier for monographic publications. Since 2001, the URN (Uniform Resource Name) namespace "ISBN" has been reserved for ISBNs. The namespace registration was performed in RFC 3187 and applied only to the ISBN as specified in the ISO Standard 2108-1992, now known as "ISBN-10". To allow for further growth in use, the successor ISO Standard, ISO 2108:2005, has defined an expanded format for the ISBN, known as "ISBN-13". This document defines how both of these ISBN standard versions can be supported within the URN framework. Moreover, additional query and fragment usage related information required by RFC 2141bis has been included. An updated namespace registration conformant to RFC 3406bis is provided. It describes how both the old and the new ISBN format can share the same namespace. This document replaces RFC 3187; it also obsoletes and moves to Historic status the predecessor thereof, RFC 2288. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-03 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de Fri Oct 19 08:00:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E6121F86CD for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:00:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.978 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.171, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4R7lDZG8OjAr for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBE6521F8767 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:00:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA105198676; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:57:56 +0200 Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id QAA23750; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:57:55 +0200 (MESZ) From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= Message-Id: <201210191457.QAA23750@TR-Sys.de> To: urn@ietf.org Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:57:55 +0200 (MESZ) In-Reply-To: <20121019144213.29182.14973.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> from "internet-drafts@ietf.org" at Oct "19, " 2012 "07:42:13" am X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-03 X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:00:15 -0000 URNbis folks, (again speaking as the draft editor) we have arrived at uploading a new version of the URN:ISBN draft, which accommodates discussion since the last draft version in spring and the implications from the "A way forward ..." changes to the rfc2141bis and rfc3406bis draft versions already submitted this week. Juha did the bulk of the work in cooperation with Maarit, but I should be blamed for all the nasty nits and flaws still buried in the document. For a quick summary of changes, please see below. Text parts of this memo related to query directives will need to be revisited after consolidation with the ISBN authorities; we hope that there will be progress in this matter soon, once the expected discussion on the core documents settles. Please study this draft in detail and send draft text related comments. The plan is to issue one or two additional draft versions (also depending on progress with the two core documents) before proceeding to WG Last Call for this document. A few minutes ago, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names, Revised > Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Using International Standard Book Numbers as > Uniform Resource Names > Author(s) : Maarit Huttunen > Juha Hakala > Alfred Hoenes > Filename : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-03.txt > Pages : 22 > Date : 2012-10-19 > > Abstract: > The International Standard Book Number, ISBN, is a widely used > identifier for monographic publications. Since 2001, the URN > (Uniform Resource Name) namespace "ISBN" has been reserved for ISBNs. > The namespace registration was performed in RFC 3187 and applied only > to the ISBN as specified in the ISO Standard 2108-1992, now known as > "ISBN-10". To allow for further growth in use, the successor ISO > Standard, ISO 2108:2005, has defined an expanded format for the ISBN, > known as "ISBN-13". This document defines how both of these ISBN > standard versions can be supported within the URN framework. > Moreover, additional query and fragment usage related information > required by RFC 2141bis has been included. An updated namespace > registration conformant to RFC 3406bis is provided. It describes how > both the old and the new ISBN format can share the same namespace. > > This document replaces RFC 3187; it also obsoletes and moves to > Historic status the predecessor thereof, RFC 2288. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-03 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-03 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > This new draft version contains the following incremental change summary as an Appendix: -------- snip -------- A.4. draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-02 to -03 - use of URI fragment is now allowed since they are not part of the NSS; - namespace registration template updated to conform with the -03 version of the rfc3406bis draft - a few editorial updates, fixes, and enhancements. -------- snip -------- A concise summary of the changes since RFC 3187 is planned to be provided with the next update cycle. Best regards, Alfred. From giu-urn@m.gmane.org Sat Oct 20 00:35:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F7C21F860F for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 00:35:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aBhA3SJibprB for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 00:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8625B21F860D for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 00:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TPTaK-0005vr-Fj for urn@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 09:35:04 +0200 Received: from gray.am-1.org ([188.120.231.229]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 09:35:04 +0200 Received: from oneingray by gray.am-1.org with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 09:35:04 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: urn@ietf.org From: Ivan Shmakov Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 14:27:32 +0700 Lines: 27 Sender: ivan@gray.siamics.net Message-ID: <86sj997gd7.fsf_-_@gray.siamics.net> References: <86ehkwcr3v.fsf@gray.siamics.net> <50804510.7080900@grothoff.org> <8662679iun.fsf@gray.siamics.net> <20121019122226.GB21513@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <86mwzi8rfn.fsf_-_@gray.siamics.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: gray.am-1.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:xDtJnHKwhAbVncy97gz3rQiWXtU= Subject: [urn] // in gnunet://, and other P2P URN's X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 07:35:00 -0000 Well, we've discussed [1] this a bit in p2p-hackers@, and it seems that I've ran out of arguments by now. The current GNUnet implementation [2] employs URI's like the following one for identifying content: gnunet://fs/chk/17GU5A2CIAQMP0K0UIGI0F3SVVB1M5HCVQC74U6KQQV9LUVJHG78ID6DLNS3EKFKT6EH24QINVVFP5CEB9455I57KAE9AT1CSM98HA0.7MPI2R9LPGVIVPADTVKJBIRKQRQVVVQ5Q0N8HU8DDRHTK56P73SUPB82V356SFJQSL0H2RNHL2MLI8AM7BA3TAOS2D97K0RQ86VDVG0.14 where 17G…HA0 is (AIUI) the Base32-encoded hash of the content. My point was that // in gnunet:// implies some sort of naming authority, which ‘fs’ (which names the “filesharing” component of GNUnet) is not. So, presuming that the GNUnet URI scheme will (eventually) be submitted for registration with IANA, I've suggested to switch to the gnunet:fs: prefix instead. Unfortunately, as it now appears, I cannot clearly explain why exactly such a change should be made. Could this issue be clarified, please? TIA. [1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.network.peer-to-peer.p2p-hackers/3569 [2] http://gnunet.org/ -- FSF associate member #7257 From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de Sun Oct 21 11:36:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B46B21F8442 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:36:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.321 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.428, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E7EXI4YGtWa7 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:36:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD15B21F8B15 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:36:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA137254471; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:34:31 +0200 Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id UAA27936; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:34:29 +0200 (MESZ) From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= Message-Id: <201210211834.UAA27936@TR-Sys.de> To: oneingray@gmail.com Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:34:29 +0200 (MESZ) In-Reply-To: <86sj997gd7.fsf_-_@gray.siamics.net> from Ivan Shmakov at Oct "20, " 2012 "02:27:32" pm X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [urn] // in gnunet://, and other P2P URN's X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 18:36:47 -0000 Ivan, [speaking as a WG co-chair]: since you (at least in your message) don't speak about URNs in the sense we are talking about here (cf. the charter of the URNbis working group and our drafts to revise RFCs 2141 and 3406), I think the discussion you seek is out of topic for the urn list. Please redirect your concerns and questions to some URI related list(s) according to their specific dedication. The particular, the uri-review (AT) ietf.org list has focus on URI scheme registrations. More general URI-centric lists are hosted by the W3C. If, OTOH, you consider solving the objectives of the envisioned 'grunet' URI scheme using URNs, read our drafts (and their RFC predecessors) and submit an internet-draft for the registration of an 'grunet' URN Namespace (using identifiers starting with "urn:grunet:") and eventually have it being discussed on the urn-nid (AT) ietf.org mailing list. But, at first glance (please ignore this statement if you are sure of the contrary), it looks like the identifiers sought are neither persistent nor protocol-independent, so likely they won't fit into the URN framework. On Oct 20, 2012 02:27:32, Ivan Shmakov wrote: > Well, we've discussed [1] this a bit in p2p-hackers@, and it > seems that I've ran out of arguments by now. > > The current GNUnet implementation [2] employs URI's like the > following one for identifying content: > > gnunet://fs/chk/17GU5A2CIAQMP0K0UIGI0F3SVVB1M5HCVQC74U6KQQV9LUVJHG78ID6DLNS3EKFKT6EH24QINVVFP5CEB9455I57KAE9AT1CSM98HA0.7MPI2R9LPGVIVPADTVKJBIRKQRQVVVQ5Q0N8HU8DDRHTK56P73SUPB82V356SFJQSL0H2RNHL2MLI8AM7BA3TAOS2D97K0RQ86VDVG0.14 > > where ... > [...] > Could this issue be clarified, please? > > TIA. > > [1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.network.peer-to-peer.p2p-hackers/3569 > [2] http://gnunet.org/ > > -- > FSF associate member #7257 > > _______________________________________________ > urn mailing list > urn@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn Note: All information on the URNbis WG of the IETF is available on the WG home page at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/urnbis/ . Best regards, Alfred Hnes. -- +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah@TR-Sys.de | +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ From giu-urn@m.gmane.org Sun Oct 21 22:29:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDAAA21F87DF for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:29:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.554 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.445, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jkA-b0KMRFIz for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:29:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF37221F8A12 for ; Sun, 21 Oct 2012 22:29:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TQAa9-0006JZ-5i for urn@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:29:45 +0200 Received: from gray.am-1.org ([188.120.231.229]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:29:45 +0200 Received: from oneingray by gray.am-1.org with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:29:45 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: urn@ietf.org From: Ivan Shmakov Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:29:23 +0700 Lines: 44 Sender: ivan@gray.siamics.net Message-ID: <867gqj5b2k.fsf@gray.siamics.net> References: <86sj997gd7.fsf_-_@gray.siamics.net> <201210211834.UAA27936@TR-Sys.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: gray.am-1.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:858Dy8/5CIFqreN/fWWf6saqBe8= Subject: Re: [urn] // in gnunet://, and other P2P URN's X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 05:29:43 -0000 >>>>> Alfred Hönes writes: > since you (at least in your message) don't speak about URNs in the > sense we are talking about here (cf. the charter of the URNbis > working group and our drafts to revise RFCs 2141 and 3406), I think > the discussion you seek is out of topic for the urn list. > Please redirect your concerns and questions to some URI related > list(s) according to their specific dedication. > The particular, the uri-review (AT) ietf.org list has focus on URI > scheme registrations. More general URI-centric lists are hosted by > the W3C. ACK, thanks for the pointers! There were two sources of confusion for me. First, there's the urn:uuid: namespace (as per RFC 4122), which allows for content-based (MD5, SHA-1) identifiers, similar to those employed in P2P filesharing networks (including BitTorrent, Freenet, and GNUnet.) Second, there're (non-standard, though, as it seems, widely used) urn:btih: (and, similarly, urn:sha1:, etc.) URI's that, I believe, were intended for registration as URN namespaces. However, I was since pointed to the proposed ni: URI scheme [1], which appears to be better suited to the task of P2P content identification. (To clarify: while the present gnunet: URI's are indeed application-specific, the primary payload of such URI's are base32hex-encoded SHA-512 digests over arbitrary content. While the ni: scheme as proposed doesn't allow for such, it provides the relevant extension mechanism, which may allow for gnunet: URI's, as well as urn:btih: and freenet:, to be superseded with ni: ones in the future.) [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-decade-ni-10 […] -- FSF associate member #7257 From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Oct 22 04:23:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1936921F8BA0; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:23:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0b7Uxtlz5MS7; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:23:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 960AC21F8B9C; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:23:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20121022112342.29635.28788.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:23:42 -0700 Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-04.txt X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:23:43 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names, Revised Working G= roup of the IETF. Title : Using National Bibliography Numbers as Uniform Resource = Names Author(s) : Juha Hakala Alfred Hoenes Filename : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-04.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2012-10-22 Abstract: National Bibliography Numbers, NBNs, are used by the national libraries and other organizations in order to identify various resources such as digitized monographs. Generally, NBNs are applied to resources that do not have an established (standard) identifier system of their own. A URN (Uniform Resource Names) namespace for NBNs was established in 2001 in RFC 3188. Since then, several European national libraries have implemented URN:NBN-based systems. This document replaces RFC 3188 and defines how NBNs can be supported within the updated URN framework. A revised namespace registration (version 4) compliant to the RFC 3406bis draft is included. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-04 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de Mon Oct 22 04:32:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E267121F8BAF for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:32:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.042, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1YiSiHJL6uW1 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F1C221F8BB1 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 04:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA148485442; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:30:42 +0200 Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id NAA29431; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:30:40 +0200 (MESZ) From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= Message-Id: <201210221130.NAA29431@TR-Sys.de> To: urn@ietf.org Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:30:40 +0200 (MESZ) In-Reply-To: <20121022112342.29635.28788.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> from "internet-drafts@ietf.org" at Oct "22, " 2012 "04:23:42" am X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-04 X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:32:58 -0000 URNbis folks, (again speaking as the draft editor) we have arrived at uploading a new version of the URN:NBN draft, which accommodates discussion since the last draft version in spring and the implications from the "A way forward ..." changes to the rfc2141bis and rfc3406bis draft versions already submitted this week. Juha did the bulk of the work, but again, I should be blamed for all the nasty nits and flaws still buried in the document. Juha will speak up and supply additional information ASAP. For a quick summary of changes, please see below. Text parts of this memo related to query directives will need to be revisited after consolidation with NBN stakeholders; we hope that there will be progress in this matter soon, once the expected discussion on the core documents settles. Please study this draft in detail and send draft text related comments. The plan is to issue one or two additional draft versions (also depending on progress with the two core documents) before proceeding to WG Last Call for this document. A few minutes ago, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names, Revised > Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Using National Bibliography Numbers as Uniform Resource Names > Author(s) : Juha Hakala > Alfred Hoenes > Filename : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-04.txt > Pages : 20 > Date : 2012-10-22 > > Abstract: > National Bibliography Numbers, NBNs, are used by the national > libraries and other organizations in order to identify various > resources such as digitized monographs. Generally, NBNs are applied > to resources that do not have an established (standard) identifier > system of their own. > > A URN (Uniform Resource Names) namespace for NBNs was established in > 2001 in RFC 3188. Since then, several European national libraries > have implemented URN:NBN-based systems. > > This document replaces RFC 3188 and defines how NBNs can be supported > within the updated URN framework. A revised namespace registration > (version 4) compliant to the RFC 3406bis draft is included. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-04 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-04 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > This new draft version contains the following incremental change summary as an Appendix: -------- snip -------- B.5. draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-03 to -04 - specification of how to use URN query and fragment part based on the revised versions of rfc2141bis and rfc3406bis; - various textual improvements and clarifications, including: - textual alignments with rfc3187bis draft vers. -03; - multiple editorial fixes and improvements. -------- snip -------- Another Appendiz of the I-D contains the updated summary of essential changes since RFC 3188: -------- snip -------- Appendix A. Significant Changes from RFC 3188 Numerous clarifications based on a decade of experience with RFC 3188. Non-ISO 3166 (country code) based NBNs have been removed due to lack of usage. In accordance with established practice, the whole NBN prefix is now declared case-insensitive. Updated URN:NBN Namespace Registration template for IANA; whole document adapted to new URN Syntax document, RFC 2141bis, and new URN Namespace Registration document, RFC 3406bis. Use of query directives and fragment parts with this Namespace is now specified, in accordance with the aforementioned RFCs. -------- snip -------- Best regards, Alfred. ~ From juha.hakala@helsinki.fi Mon Oct 22 05:36:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5731021F88F5 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 05:36:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w3-gpYWVZrff for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 05:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp-rs1-vallila2.fe.helsinki.fi (smtp-rs1-vallila2.fe.helsinki.fi [128.214.173.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0774621F87B2 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 05:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.214.71.180] (lh2-kkl1206.lib.helsinki.fi [128.214.71.180]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-rs1.it.helsinki.fi (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9MCaC2S027119 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:36:13 +0300 Message-ID: <50853DBC.4020601@helsinki.fi> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 15:36:12 +0300 From: Juha Hakala User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0.8) Gecko/20121005 Thunderbird/10.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: urn@ietf.org, Alfred Hoenes References: <201210221130.NAA29431@TR-Sys.de> In-Reply-To: <201210221130.NAA29431@TR-Sys.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-04 X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:36:18 -0000 Hello, The new namespace registrations for URN:NBN and URN:ISBN have benefited a lot from revisions Alfred has made to the I-Ds he is responsible of. Both ISBN and NBN communities are likely to find e.g. query and fragment valuable, and the latest versions of 2141bis and 3406bis provide a solid basis for specifying how these URI features are to be used within a particular URI namespace. Given the usefulness of query and fragment in the PID context it is obvious that people will start using them in URNs (in fact, I know one project which is already using fragment). If the URN syntax specification and the namespace registration guidelines say nothing about how to use these features (or whether they can be used at all), there can be a lot of confusion. People might use e.g. fragment when it is not appropriate, or reinvent functionality available via query. Therefore it would've been impractical to use Peter's slim URN syntax variant as the starting point of these namespace registrations. More generally, concerning this issue brought up by SM: > I'll be candid. I took a quick look at the draft. About a third of the > text in draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03 is non-technical material. > When I compare this draft with the one submitted by Peter Saint-Andre, > I am inclined to pick the latter. I support Alfred's point that many people who'll read URN-related RFCs will not be familiar with IETF in general and the history of URNs in particular, and it is important to provide them some background information. A particularly important target group are people representing identifier systems which may or may not register namespaces. The key RFCs may be the only source of information at hand when the process begins, and if these documents provide just the very minimum of what is needed, some important namespace registrations may never be produced. I have written namespace registration requests using both the old, "skeletal" RFC 2141 and the new RFC2141bis, and IMHO the new, more exhaustive document was more helpful. I am a librarian, not an engineer, but writing a namespace registration request requires, first and foremost, familiarity with the identifier standard and its usage. All the best, Juha On 22.10.2012 14:30, Alfred � wrote: > URNbis folks, (again speaking as the draft editor) > > we have arrived at uploading a new version of the URN:NBN draft, > which accommodates discussion since the last draft version in > spring and the implications from the "A way forward ..." changes > to the rfc2141bis and rfc3406bis draft versions already submitted > this week. > > Juha did the bulk of the work, but again, I should be blamed for > all the nasty nits and flaws still buried in the document. > Juha will speak up and supply additional information ASAP. > > For a quick summary of changes, please see below. > > Text parts of this memo related to query directives will need > to be revisited after consolidation with NBN stakeholders; > we hope that there will be progress in this matter soon, once > the expected discussion on the core documents settles. > > Please study this draft in detail and send draft text related > comments. The plan is to issue one or two additional draft > versions (also depending on progress with the two core documents) > before proceeding to WG Last Call for this document. > > > A few minutes ago, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Uniform Resource Names, Revised >> Working Group of the IETF. >> >> Title : Using National Bibliography Numbers as Uniform Resource Names >> Author(s) : Juha Hakala >> Alfred Hoenes >> Filename : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-04.txt >> Pages : 20 >> Date : 2012-10-22 >> >> Abstract: >> National Bibliography Numbers, NBNs, are used by the national >> libraries and other organizations in order to identify various >> resources such as digitized monographs. Generally, NBNs are applied >> to resources that do not have an established (standard) identifier >> system of their own. >> >> A URN (Uniform Resource Names) namespace for NBNs was established in >> 2001 in RFC 3188. Since then, several European national libraries >> have implemented URN:NBN-based systems. >> >> This document replaces RFC 3188 and defines how NBNs can be supported >> within the updated URN framework. A revised namespace registration >> (version 4) compliant to the RFC 3406bis draft is included. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-04 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-04 >> >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> > > This new draft version contains the following incremental change > summary as an Appendix: > > -------- snip -------- > > B.5. draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-03 to -04 > > - specification of how to use URN query and fragment part based on > the revised versions of rfc2141bis and rfc3406bis; > - various textual improvements and clarifications, including: > - textual alignments with rfc3187bis draft vers. -03; > - multiple editorial fixes and improvements. > > -------- snip -------- > > > Another Appendiz of the I-D contains the updated summary of essential > changes since RFC 3188: > > -------- snip -------- > > Appendix A. Significant Changes from RFC 3188 > > Numerous clarifications based on a decade of experience with > RFC 3188. > > Non-ISO 3166 (country code) based NBNs have been removed due to lack > of usage. > > In accordance with established practice, the whole NBN prefix is now > declared case-insensitive. > > Updated URN:NBN Namespace Registration template for IANA; whole > document adapted to new URN Syntax document, RFC 2141bis, and new URN > Namespace Registration document, RFC 3406bis. > > Use of query directives and fragment parts with this Namespace is now > specified, in accordance with the aforementioned RFCs. > > -------- snip -------- > > > Best regards, > Alfred. > > ~ > _______________________________________________ > urn mailing list > urn@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn -- Juha Hakala Senior advisor The National Library of Finland P.O.Box 15 (Unioninkatu 36, room 503) FIN-00014 Helsinki University tel +358 9 191 44293 From masinter@adobe.com Wed Oct 24 14:03:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2262921F8AC0 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:03:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7ebpqvcOjAu7 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:03:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og115.obsmtp.com (exprod6og115.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A66A21F8A62 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:03:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob115.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUIhXiFqpnLmSl8O0zZ76uCst5uin0JKr@postini.com; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:03:04 PDT Received: from inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (inner-relay-4.adobe.com [193.104.215.14]) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id q9OL0K1v001269 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:00:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nacas03.corp.adobe.com (nacas03.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.121]) by inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id q9OL31XL005736 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:03:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nacas03.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.121]) with mapi; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:03:01 -0700 From: Larry Masinter To: "urn@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:02:59 -0700 Thread-Topic: Informal Meeting in Atlanta? Thread-Index: Ac2yKjKhFcVUehAZTBSARjP46k1kAg== Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [urn] Informal Meeting in Atlanta? X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 21:03:05 -0000 There's no URN working group meeting scheduled for the Atlanta, but I'd lik= e to talk about urns going forward.... Those who will be there, can we try to meet up informally?=20 Thursday lunch? 1-3 would work for me, other suggestions? Larry From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Wed Oct 24 14:08:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05E221F8B45 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:08:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.095 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.119, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5pt8g0A5BjTb for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2304B21F8A62 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:08:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so675522lam.31 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:08:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=X/N1gKTeWfQLPGdLRWOvEPqIsXE03wAGItYCNQkumJg=; b=AeNKfHlIrGOiXt+FqeHvueJdmzcCvysu6YMynPP5H6XUJK90FYk/rdyezUs/f7oSVi QsBxnuXypudzrPwVgS028NrEWfLMcs9BuJo7kS+FJopJYGVcwgR/3/Rvi2XfaPtL4MSt w5TpRY5pCmlvV1shPNuqn1owHo/YgFGtJYzKvBZjplBvd3doLGqQQBTnFWf1ZWlutjFj g56Um5ez5KXCxW2UW88bEideexpgiQoJSygSmBTJx6fj9KTQ4e+3O0uzoobs6C1QAbjV d966KO2NV0HjB439xFBeNen5dJ0REP0A15quQiFkGsCNhq/b+TbqrRV0XEYFMt85LMxz i5RA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.103.7 with SMTP id fs7mr6868284lbb.25.1351112881099; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:08:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.99.131 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:08:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:08:01 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: dfCe1vaySt6Kpf3wvOUfabj7Kos Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Larry Masinter Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0401fea55455bc04ccd47b89 Cc: "urn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [urn] Informal Meeting in Atlanta? X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 21:08:03 -0000 --f46d0401fea55455bc04ccd47b89 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Those who will be there, can we try to meet up informally? > Thursday lunch? 1-3 would work for me, other suggestions? > The App Area chairs will all be in an App Area chairs' lunch with Pete and me on Thursday. Barry --f46d0401fea55455bc04ccd47b89 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Those who will be there, can we try to meet = up informally?
Thursday lunch? 1-3 would work for me, other suggestions?

The App Area chairs will all be in an App = Area chairs' lunch with Pete and me on Thursday.

Barry=A0 --f46d0401fea55455bc04ccd47b89-- From masinter@adobe.com Wed Oct 24 14:22:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BDC021F88D4 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:22:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -107.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-107.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13waF5pQOvK6 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod6og106.obsmtp.com (exprod6og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.191]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21DC421F8869 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:22:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com ([193.104.215.16]) by exprod6ob106.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUIhcEjQzyoU9reJkLLb8K/twOuK7Rzcx@postini.com; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:22:28 PDT Received: from inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (inner-relay-4b [10.128.4.237]) by outbound-smtp-2.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id q9OLMQHP026175; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nahub02.corp.adobe.com (nahub02.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.98]) by inner-relay-4.eur.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id q9OLKtXO012157; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nahub02.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.98]) with mapi; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:20:59 -0700 From: Larry Masinter To: Ivan Shmakov , "urn@ietf.org" Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:20:57 -0700 Thread-Topic: [urn] // in gnunet://, and other P2P URN's Thread-Index: Ac2ulW0Jsg6roougQBCt5GvY6E19SADl7eRg Message-ID: References: <86ehkwcr3v.fsf@gray.siamics.net> <50804510.7080900@grothoff.org> <8662679iun.fsf@gray.siamics.net> <20121019122226.GB21513@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <86mwzi8rfn.fsf_-_@gray.siamics.net> <86sj997gd7.fsf_-_@gray.siamics.net> In-Reply-To: <86sj997gd7.fsf_-_@gray.siamics.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [urn] // in gnunet://, and other P2P URN's X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 21:22:32 -0000 KGRvbid0IHRoaW5rIHRoaXMgaXMgYSAndXJuJyBpc3N1ZSwgYnV0KToNCg0KDQpodHRwOi8vdG9v bHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLWlyaS00Mzk1YmlzLWlyaXJlZw0KDQozLjIuICBT eW50YWN0aWMgQ29tcGF0aWJpbGl0eQ0KICAgQXZvaWQgaW1wcm9wZXIgdXNlIG9mICIvLyIuICBU aGUgdXNlIG9mIGRvdWJsZSBzbGFzaGVzIGluIHRoZSBmaXJzdA0KICAgcGFydCBvZiBhIFVSSS9J UkkgaXMgbm90IGFuIGFydGlzdGljIGluZGljYXRvciB0aGF0IHdoYXQgZm9sbG93cyBpcyBhDQog ICBVUkkvSVJJOiBEb3VibGUgc2xhc2hlcyBhcmUgdXNlZCBPTkxZIHdoZW4gdGhlIHN5bnRheCBv ZiB0aGUgPHNjaGVtZS0NCiAgIHNwZWNpZmljLXBhcnQ+IGNvbnRhaW5zIGEgaGllcmFyY2hpY2Fs IHN0cnVjdHVyZS4gIEluIFVSSXMgYW5kIElSSXMNCiAgIGZyb20gc3VjaCBzY2hlbWVzLCB0aGUg dXNlIG9mIGRvdWJsZSBzbGFzaGVzIGluZGljYXRlcyB0aGF0IHdoYXQNCiAgIGZvbGxvd3MgaXMg dGhlIHRvcCBoaWVyYXJjaGljYWwgZWxlbWVudCBmb3IgYSBuYW1pbmcgYXV0aG9yaXR5Lg0KICAg KFNlY3Rpb24gMy4yIG9mIFJGQyAzOTg2IGhhcyBtb3JlIGRldGFpbHMuKSAgU2NoZW1lcyB0aGF0 IGRvIG5vdA0KICAgY29udGFpbiBhIGNvbmZvcm1hbnQgaGllcmFyY2hpY2FsIHN0cnVjdHVyZSBp biB0aGVpciA8c2NoZW1lLQ0KICAgc3BlY2lmaWMtcGFydD4gU0hPVUxEIE5PVCB1c2UgZG91Ymxl IHNsYXNoZXMgZm9sbG93aW5nIHRoZQ0KICAgIjxzY2hlbWU+OiIgc3RyaW5nLg0KDQpUaGF0IGlz LCB0aGUgb25seSBlZmZlY3Qgb2YgLy8gIC8gZGVsaW1pdGVkIGF1dGhvcml0eSBpcyBvbiB0aGUg cmVzb2x1dGlvbiBvZiByZWxhdGl2ZSByZWZlcmVuY2VzIGluIGNvbnRleHRzIHRoYXQgZG8gbm90 IG90aGVyd2lzZSBoYXZlIGEgImJhc2UiLg0KDQo+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0t DQo+IEZyb206IHVybi1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86dXJuLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5v cmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBJdmFuDQo+IFNobWFrb3YNCj4gU2VudDogU2F0dXJkYXksIE9jdG9i ZXIgMjAsIDIwMTIgMTI6MjggQU0NCj4gVG86IHVybkBpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBbdXJu XSAvLyBpbiBnbnVuZXQ6Ly8sIGFuZCBvdGhlciBQMlAgVVJOJ3MNCj4gDQo+IAlXZWxsLCB3ZSd2 ZSBkaXNjdXNzZWQgWzFdIHRoaXMgYSBiaXQgaW4gcDJwLWhhY2tlcnNALCBhbmQgaXQNCj4gCXNl ZW1zIHRoYXQgSSd2ZSByYW4gb3V0IG9mIGFyZ3VtZW50cyBieSBub3cuDQo+IA0KPiAJVGhlIGN1 cnJlbnQgR05VbmV0IGltcGxlbWVudGF0aW9uIFsyXSBlbXBsb3lzIFVSSSdzIGxpa2UgdGhlDQo+ IAlmb2xsb3dpbmcgb25lIGZvciBpZGVudGlmeWluZyBjb250ZW50Og0KPiANCj4gZ251bmV0Oi8v ZnMvY2hrLzE3R1U1QTJDSUFRTVAwSzBVSUdJMEYzU1ZWQjFNNUhDVlFDNzRVNktRUVY5TFVWDQo+ IEpIRzc4SUQ2RExOUzNFS0ZLVDZFSDI0UUlOVlZGUDVDRUI5NDU1STU3S0FFOUFUMUNTTTk4SEEw LjdNUEkyUjlMDQo+IFBHVklWUEFEVFZLSkJJUktRUlFWVlZRNVEwTjhIVThERFJIVEs1NlA3M1NV UEI4MlYzNTZTRkpRU0wwSDINCj4gUk5ITDJNTEk4QU03QkEzVEFPUzJEOTdLMFJRODZWRFZHMC4x NA0KPiANCj4gCXdoZXJlIDE3R+KApkhBMCBpcyAoQUlVSSkgdGhlIEJhc2UzMi1lbmNvZGVkIGhh c2ggb2YgdGhlIGNvbnRlbnQuDQo+IA0KPiAJTXkgcG9pbnQgd2FzIHRoYXQgLy8gaW4gZ251bmV0 Oi8vIGltcGxpZXMgc29tZSBzb3J0IG9mIG5hbWluZw0KPiAJYXV0aG9yaXR5LCB3aGljaCDigJhm c+KAmSAod2hpY2ggbmFtZXMgdGhlIOKAnGZpbGVzaGFyaW5n4oCdIGNvbXBvbmVudA0KPiAJb2Yg R05VbmV0KSBpcyBub3QuICBTbywgcHJlc3VtaW5nIHRoYXQgdGhlIEdOVW5ldCBVUkkgc2NoZW1l DQo+IAl3aWxsIChldmVudHVhbGx5KSBiZSBzdWJtaXR0ZWQgZm9yIHJlZ2lzdHJhdGlvbiB3aXRo IElBTkEsIEkndmUNCj4gCXN1Z2dlc3RlZCB0byBzd2l0Y2ggdG8gdGhlIGdudW5ldDpmczogcHJl Zml4IGluc3RlYWQuDQo+IAlVbmZvcnR1bmF0ZWx5LCBhcyBpdCBub3cgYXBwZWFycywgSSBjYW5u b3QgY2xlYXJseSBleHBsYWluIHdoeQ0KPiAJZXhhY3RseSBzdWNoIGEgY2hhbmdlIHNob3VsZCBi ZSBtYWRlLg0KPiANCj4gCUNvdWxkIHRoaXMgaXNzdWUgYmUgY2xhcmlmaWVkLCBwbGVhc2U/DQo+ IA0KPiAJVElBLg0KPiANCj4gWzFdIGh0dHA6Ly9jb21tZW50cy5nbWFuZS5vcmcvZ21hbmUubmV0 d29yay5wZWVyLXRvLXBlZXIucDJwLQ0KPiBoYWNrZXJzLzM1NjkNCj4gWzJdIGh0dHA6Ly9nbnVu ZXQub3JnLw0KPiANCj4gLS0NCj4gRlNGIGFzc29jaWF0ZSBtZW1iZXIgIzcyNTcNCj4gDQo+IF9f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+IHVybiBtYWls aW5nIGxpc3QNCj4gdXJuQGlldGYub3JnDQo+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4v bGlzdGluZm8vdXJuDQo= From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de Thu Oct 25 05:55:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3DEA21F8A36 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 05:55:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.414 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.414 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.335, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KyY1lEPpsUNv for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 05:55:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C4BE21F8A27 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 05:55:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA197329606; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:53:26 +0200 Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id OAA08009; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:53:24 +0200 (MESZ) From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= Message-Id: <201210251253.OAA08009@TR-Sys.de> To: masinter@adobe.com Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:53:24 +0200 (MESZ) In-Reply-To: from Larry Masinter at Oct "24, " 2012 "02:02:59" pm X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [urn] Informal Meeting in Atlanta? X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 12:55:42 -0000 Larry, a quick personal response ... > There's no URN working group meeting scheduled for the Atlanta, > but I'd like to talk about urns going forward.... The milestones in the WG charter recently have been updated. The (substantially revised) four WG draft versions recently submitted for discussion incorporate the "A way forward ..." proposal I had made early in July (see the recent commented I-D submission announcements on the list), as moderated by subsequent discussion. (The due revision of the rfc3044bis draft is expected to be submitted ASAP as well.) So please review the revised I-Ds -- in particular the two core documents (rfc2141bis and rfc3406bis) and speak on the urn list. We all hope for serious text-oriented discussion there! > > Those who will be there, can we try to meet up informally? Neither I nor -- AFAICT -- any of the other (co-)authors of URNbis WG documents will be at the Atlanta IETF meeting. As alluded to in our revised milestones, we expect URNbis to have a face-to-face meeting at the Berlin IETF next year, with the objective to finalize current work (where needed) and either close or re-charter. Kind regards, Alfred. > Thursday lunch? 1-3 would work for me, other suggestions? > > Larry > > _______________________________________________ > urn mailing list > urn@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn From andy@hxr.us Thu Oct 25 11:16:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CB6021F8722 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:16:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.95 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.428, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id COT6XCOs0Eo5 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:16:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBAC21F8508 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:16:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-bk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id jc3so903733bkc.31 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:16:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=s62LlfgiothcopV4g7hBbFD8UAm+1cFid/uDmE/yBi4=; b=DB6e31t/q+z5PefLW9XFLOAsOnlHbg8CuYD24kUwnWgSEB9WmyPIg3udnOXTLFoUgo 9EX3979GYwCH8ciy+p0tHVpFAmRCl1p8/2ig81klaRsTaHKHJ1Ayc58LvxqZfxiyOZOm dP5se4xTuEbCGeVErTiFtoVXAbiAsa4ICKC+ZsA0+iGC3XFbDbOnxc7cZ3A42vBwHnR6 4j1fiDJpcutmKl6QejMBRPFIlU6k2YUrOhrHM9Kaav/ngPW9NDpOtWZ8To9+cYAgRlEP Ug5U0vtMA588i1MpoM+IaL+u8t5EPXHO4QR79KCPo+/dpA2uyhkSRNvz51YqbGfNHuEl nReg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.30.65 with SMTP id q1mr7469078lbh.83.1351188982787; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.9.135 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:16:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [192.149.252.11] In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:16:22 -0700 Message-ID: From: Andrew Newton To: Larry Masinter Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlrViwqcp1GeZsUpt4H9RBqqFcJz17/rIKRSOC+oNMpxg467yn6N0Kz5ZCiy3NPdT564+8y Cc: "urn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [urn] Informal Meeting in Atlanta? X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:16:25 -0000 On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Larry Masinter wrote: > There's no URN working group meeting scheduled for the Atlanta, but I'd like to talk about urns going forward.... > > Those who will be there, can we try to meet up informally? > Thursday lunch? 1-3 would work for me, other suggestions? As Barry stated, Thursday lunch isn't good for Apps folks. However, I have noticed that Afternoon Session II on Thursday is wonderfully free of Apps area work. Meeting during that time would work well with me. Others? -andy From andy@hxr.us Thu Oct 25 11:35:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D176821F8971 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:35:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.939 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.939 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qklFrQ2kYC7p for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:35:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A11021F8970 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so2038218lam.31 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=7DdgicaRWj61ZXF0kH5xJlIG9q4PnVgNE9QrHc5kdrc=; b=EoDsIycl4SEpykWu1wJRln1i1WWtoKaa+exVLWtzKWRXU5fpE/6AU5iMxpLlC7gQXm W6Pp8SERGlTGEREQk9orSFrysOjnZInAhUixtOFt5bBrwUe4JYHbPJns3S0ULyWU3TBu G/CUU8EJAMADcqedCyYrZZdfewZ82ioht/3m5W90eMkdGBiNc5or/aDeVf3+qreQ9s8D B9s1lGGhSzWfo6zBAOCJBhXcTbnUZjfk3nMxyBah0XZTcE6SUJoht7+IIQPhvVP3/YDG gSMNn1RZYp2oFyM20p5l9mlnErIRCvEq4AKqylgm8/eIeXtp0F/zJLMAfA7MIkS5dqrd +hXg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.146.101 with SMTP id tb5mr18046487lab.44.1351190099972; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:34:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.9.135 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:34:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [192.149.252.11] Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:34:59 -0700 Message-ID: From: Andrew Newton To: urn@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm4ACHsR4e/HtlffFKBaxpd9lksDQxGrJm/DRcii4BXhu/6ruoJ3a4OgGklKUihuvGm2wxP Subject: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:35:03 -0000 All, We have received a request for this working group to consider an alternative to its adopted 2141bis document (draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03). That alternative is draft-saintandre-urnbis-2141bis-00 (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-urnbis-2141bis/). Additionally, some reviewers of our adopted document have expressed concern regarding its unnecessary wordiness, especially in comparison with the alternative. Can participants of this working group please review both documents and express opinions and provide comments as to the direction desired for this working group in regards to a 2141bis RFC? The two documents can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn/ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-urnbis-2141bis/ We will use the IETF standard of rough consensus to determine the way forward. Finally, should the working group desire an alternative approach, we intend to preserve and publish the historical and non-normative information found in our current document. This information is valuable and important. -andy co-chair, URNBIS From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Thu Oct 25 11:58:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE92421F8893 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:58:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.084 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.084 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gm+G1ILJaZE2 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 094C121F886D for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so2066479lam.31 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:57:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zC9DfNCk2IjnzrCWfKfogGlhH5WuKG3dUTp11MaN33c=; b=ahB3DcjXkm4q/EVpHrkn9ZLC7ElH0R5Mjjak/CZRnqUsoitekasVWgY8syR/1eRibv feuQf60rPdV9+xAYxRbyuGwYTOnisKc9BXL3V2NThaBY//ZC3BhSUQe+9DS8Wgj1Co/e LapUgwrkHyi2Tflrn9HtPzJnaU5imMS7pOXFF+vaZMjpTO9QZqRua5w2qL9yaCVA4kMK fiwH5KsDnjfpRFriQWxVUNW/GrbYNCM3OdavtpqplEYQK2Y5667OQLPcVlLH/kHtWFmS SK2GU6aIZ+QY8E6lfLkPlILEZSrWcHtGKFsQPcFaBf+BxgPzESCOb6iModXUK7rK2Wwt D/9Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.105.68 with SMTP id gk4mr18208030lab.48.1351191477700; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.99.131 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:57:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 14:57:57 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: cPvDh5MfeN7CwsIhfgf7ouOuxFI Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: Andrew Newton Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d040714af0d467804cce6c804 Cc: "urn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [urn] Informal Meeting in Atlanta? X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:58:01 -0000 --f46d040714af0d467804cce6c804 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > As Barry stated, Thursday lunch isn't good for Apps folks. However, I > have noticed that Afternoon Session II on Thursday is wonderfully free > of Apps area work. Meeting during that time would work well with me. > It's clear of Apps stuff because SAAG (the Security Area general session) is at that time, and there's often important Apps overlap with what's talked about there. Others can certainly meet then, but I'll be in SAAG. b --f46d040714af0d467804cce6c804 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As Barry stated, Thursday lunch isn't go= od for Apps folks. However, I
have noticed that Afternoon Session II on Thursday is wonderfully free
of Apps area work. Meeting during that time would work well with me.

It's clear of Apps stuff because SAAG = (the Security Area general session) is at that time, and there's often = important Apps overlap with what's talked about there. =A0Others can ce= rtainly meet then, but I'll be in SAAG.

b
=A0
--f46d040714af0d467804cce6c804-- From sm@resistor.net Sat Oct 27 01:21:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA6CC21F84CD for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:21:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BmfytHfRuDDA for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2B321F84B5 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:21:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9R8LcFV020772 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:21:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1351326101; bh=h/fxBBkr4ubX4YYgEg/cWsozDBz4LCyavfAl48jt/Cs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=3y0ZxD5xGdyb6CqpMAgyJLV/0DZNMywt9YXMT2L5913wBRUnxnucAX/eFF6lh6vZ0 pISRaqX8FTvCbrqC7uSkfi/x2vawlT7gYt9dRwEsyCMWNQ9P4vZnsNQ8bzob4BFJ94 qKLYCMCso90vM72+thrO763l7uQ2qgGpXlPAsACg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1351326101; i=@resistor.net; bh=h/fxBBkr4ubX4YYgEg/cWsozDBz4LCyavfAl48jt/Cs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=rSclC/vFLa3mEg2YWYclrUgocmFl0FmGpViGj4J7+NHGXLHfNx9ouwvLp7emgRq23 R2oNDWcaJBqIkwRH0uSYhPBfNb8Xoe9dM1kafMMD2XxHpfsBPaXldJvf2rZFSzAQFN Jll1Hab7C40iyLufFYGLaBBMWVJtl6lm1Edh4HlI= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121027010212.09337088@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:21:44 -0700 To: urn@ietf.org From: SM In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 08:21:47 -0000 At 11:34 25-10-2012, Andrew Newton wrote: >We have received a request for this working group to consider an >alternative to its adopted 2141bis document >(draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03). That alternative is >draft-saintandre-urnbis-2141bis-00 [snip] >Can participants of this working group please review both documents >and express opinions and provide comments as to the direction desired >for this working group in regards to a 2141bis RFC? I am inclined to pick draft-saintandre-urnbis-2141bis-00 as it is a shorter version of the specification and it contains the material necessary for someone to implement the specification. This is conditional on the editor of the document committing to having the document ready for Last Call within a short time frame, let's say two months. Regards, -sm From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Sat Oct 27 07:41:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F8E21F852E for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:41:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.137 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.137 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.161, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OXaKBoyFH26e for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:41:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F72921F8553 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:41:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so3268027lam.31 for ; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:41:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rZji942fhIr3XlQeaAVc4m9thlzQ5BMPCc4jam0eUl4=; b=lzY3XIUY3Wka/ea4R3Pgg3wsZtPYAezudV6dZ4l/8YdbJoR8tg2E9HnYQTSYdyJPax PyYN2TjYZIqkQoEHGZN/OgW3GHz8UGzRcvVOSo/5nrzmtPrm8x8Skn7zqL9bXD2J0Wtx f+4PHz05+rgtKAwvQsGXDDLfp/0lvWc7hm95b9VvC373SWbtH2dKz4ObJKUm/Rt6pnUF 0w49+qBDNvuvh8l1A4NXjDhalETtshZEV5fanOne27Zx6fwWuXJgaQ3mwtHaOF2vM7OL flrJ+CjRDpvd4IcvK+Jr6tB1UFuUdkuDMheEjjKtxWHG1HNdOQkZq0r80frZQrrEUvoS 5JqA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.105.68 with SMTP id gk4mr22642018lab.48.1351348887211; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:41:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.99.131 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:41:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121027010212.09337088@resistor.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20121027010212.09337088@resistor.net> Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:41:27 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: vaGakW4rrwb_2cOqwmqLTcCAt6Y Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: SM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d040714af63cec504cd0b6ec0 Cc: "urn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:41:30 -0000 --f46d040714af63cec504cd0b6ec0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > This is conditional on the editor of the document committing to having the > document ready for Last Call within a short time frame, let's say two > months. > Indeed; we have a new schedule -- see the charter, and scroll to the bottom for the milestones, here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/urnbis/charter/ I would like to see us meet those dates, to a reasonable approximation. That means that I'd like to see us get to WGLC on the two core docs (2141bis and 3406bis) around the end of the year. Barry --f46d040714af63cec504cd0b6ec0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is conditional on the editor of the doc= ument committing to having the document ready for Last Call within a short = time frame, let's say two months.

Indeed; we have a new schedule -- see the = charter, and scroll to the bottom for the milestones, here:

I would like to see us meet th= ose dates, to a reasonable approximation. =A0That means that I'd like t= o see us get to WGLC on the two core docs (2141bis and 3406bis) around the = end of the year.

Barry --f46d040714af63cec504cd0b6ec0-- From L.Svensson@dnb.de Mon Oct 29 10:50:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABED21F86EA for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:50:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_WEOFFER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xhlzrfzWgc1H for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:50:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nordpol.ddb.de (nordpol.ddb.de [193.175.100.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60ECA21F86CD for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:50:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE (unknown [10.69.63.245]) by nordpol.ddb.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E1ED5D39 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:50:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from DNBF-EX1.AD.DDB.DE ([fe80::7076:30f7:60ad:16a0]) by dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE ([fe80::7076:30f7:60ad:16a0%12]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:50:22 +0100 From: "Svensson, Lars" To: "urn@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document Thread-Index: AQHNst+BBJ8XGGNKAUKvh2m9P5ShbpfQjb1g Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:50:21 +0000 Message-ID: <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EFA3F8E0E2@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.200.69.222] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:50:25 -0000 All, > Can participants of this working group please review both documents and > express opinions and provide comments as to the direction desired for > this working group in regards to a 2141bis RFC? To me it seems obvious that people have different views of what an RFC shou= ld offer. One view is that an RFC first and foremost should offer a specifi= cation suitable for _technical_ implementers (engineers). The other view is= well described by what Juha wrote: [[ [...] many people who'll read URN-related RFCs will not be familiar with IE= TF in general and the history of URNs in particular, and it is important to= provide them some background information. A particularly important target = group are people representing identifier systems which may or may not regis= ter namespaces. The key RFCs may be the only source of information at hand = when the process begins, and if these documents provide just the very minim= um of what is needed, some important namespace registrations may never be p= roduced. I have written namespace registration requests using both the old,= "skeletal" RFC 2141 and the new RFC2141bis, and IMHO the new, more exhaust= ive document was more helpful. I am a librarian, not an engineer, but writi= ng a namespace registration request requires, first and foremost, familiari= ty with the identifier standard and its usage. ]] As a librarian with a background in software engineering I feel that both p= oints are valid. In order to foster uptake of the URN specifications among = groups who are not familiar with the IETF, it is important to be able to po= int (non-technical) implementers to the background information; it is valua= ble and important and must not be lost. OTOH it is very well possible that = engineers outside the cultural heritage sector are not willing to read a 30= page specification in order to distill out the four pages of information t= hey need to complete their task; the result could be a lack of uptake withi= n that group. As a compromise: Could it be an option to let the RFC focus o= n the technical implementation and to factor out the background information= into a separate document and refer to it as a non-normative reference in t= he RFC? If the background document is given a URN:NBN and we offer resolvin= g through e. g. http://nbn-resolving.org we would even have a nice showcase= what an implementation could look like. All the best, Lars ***Lesen. H=F6ren. Wissen. 100 Jahre Deutsche Nationalbibliothek*** ***Reading. Listening. Understanding. A century of the German National Libr= ary*** --=20 Dr. Lars G. Svensson Deutsche Nationalbibliothek / Informationstechnik http://www.dnb.de/ l.svensson@dnb.de http://www.dnb.de/100jahre From andy@hxr.us Mon Oct 29 11:04:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F48421F86EA for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:04:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8CebDG5CrAx0 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:04:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEEB221F8673 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:04:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so4441700lam.31 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=mk8YMyRwD1bwCOEf50sLQ2ABsbnYk+95WBYi7xZ12XE=; b=eq1FsHWyLm0Llr1smlpEZxizKV6FFLZPwWfDLrU4p8LIYvlxxgBk7rvHKz3tWExgCd ekgjohdYD7FwB02idXoHfMDu/HMv78+2SIWZ14XjMPTDZthE3G80HYwJ/GhSskOuHCZ8 /DD2cASZSA5ZHjlGVmbntC8awpyVL+nPJ5UFvHhu2b+sXE7Y9WydMZUyCk/lTl9Imb+P sYb/UhB6gZ0p9KC8UoDzE2YzjTpVMGSFak5zznDicF7zAvpffn/Dx2+qOAqOxh8yZfl6 +FD7YZ5vOHH1Uu0b6k4pkXY4DcV90Rz3TGUx2kAusWM3GG1Dok438LfEfx10h35FbeUz 6rBA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.38.234 with SMTP id j10mr11918697lbk.80.1351533849843; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.155.138 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:04:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [192.149.252.11] In-Reply-To: <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EFA3F8E0E2@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE> References: <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EFA3F8E0E2@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:04:09 -0400 Message-ID: From: Andrew Newton To: "Svensson, Lars" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnOfiWlU+hwUPEbnwcKCh1jB4gghF+kn3tTZSJ9okNkzhlL01t5Zo5BsH6TJXrsNcdbRuur Cc: "urn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:04:12 -0000 On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Svensson, Lars wrote: > As a compromise: Could it be an option to let the RFC focus on the technical implementation and to factor out the background information into a separate document and refer to it as a non-normative reference in the RFC? Lars, Yes, that is absolutely a possibility. Thanks for your comment. -andy (co-chair) From prvs=0650679a98=bengt.neiss@kb.se Tue Oct 30 03:00:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1A421F84ED for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:00:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vsvk2EMEfPg9 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:00:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mspkb001.kb.se (mspkb001.kb.se [193.10.249.137]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC30D21F8490 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:00:10 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: mspkb001.kb.se header.from=bengt.neiss@kb.se; domainkeys=neutral (no sig) From: Bengt Neiss To: Andrew Newton , "Svensson, Lars" Thread-Topic: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document Thread-Index: AQHNst+ASEW74yxshEGWnDKavK8ztpfQhTiAgAAD24CAARsQAA== Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:00:07 +0000 Message-ID: References: <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EFA3F8E0E2@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US Content-Language: sv-SE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Received-SPF: none Cc: "urn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:00:14 -0000 All, Just would like to add that I agree and support the suggested compromise. //Bengt > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Fr=E5n: urn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:urn-bounces@ietf.org] F=F6r Andrew N= ewton > Skickat: den 29 oktober 2012 19:04 > Till: Svensson, Lars > Kopia: urn@ietf.org > =C4mne: Re: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document >=20 > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Svensson, Lars wrote= : > > As a compromise: Could it be an option to let the RFC focus on the tech= nical > implementation and to factor out the background information into a separa= te > document and refer to it as a non-normative reference in the RFC? >=20 >=20 > Lars, >=20 > Yes, that is absolutely a possibility. Thanks for your comment. >=20 > -andy (co-chair) > _______________________________________________ > urn mailing list > urn@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn From julian.reschke@gmx.de Tue Oct 30 03:18:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2AF21F84B5 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:18:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, SARE_WEOFFER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wayqs7V1BAW2 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 70EB621F84B3 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2012 10:10:24 -0000 Received: from p5DD974B5.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.217.116.181] by mail.gmx.net (mp019) with SMTP; 30 Oct 2012 11:10:24 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1915285 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/z0Io5r2Dz7IA3SEhqJ9qPgLAvSrBew4eU53E3yY 91B15FZ4hIcYAv Message-ID: <508FA78E.9080903@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:10:22 +0100 From: Julian Reschke User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Svensson, Lars" References: <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EFA3F8E0E2@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE> In-Reply-To: <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EFA3F8E0E2@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: "urn@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:18:39 -0000 On 2012-10-29 18:50, Svensson, Lars wrote: > All, > >> Can participants of this working group please review both documents and >> express opinions and provide comments as to the direction desired for >> this working group in regards to a 2141bis RFC? > > To me it seems obvious that people have different views of what an RFC should offer. One view is that an RFC first and foremost should offer a specification suitable for _technical_ implementers (engineers). The other view is well described by what Juha wrote: > > [[ > [...] many people who'll read URN-related RFCs will not be familiar with IETF in general and the history of URNs in particular, and it is important to provide them some background information. A particularly important target group are people representing identifier systems which may or may not register namespaces. The key RFCs may be the only source of information at hand when the process begins, and if these documents provide just the very minimum of what is needed, some important namespace registrations may never be produced. I have written namespace registration requests using both the old, "skeletal" RFC 2141 and the new RFC2141bis, and IMHO the new, more exhaustive document was more helpful. I am a librarian, not an engineer, but writing a namespace registration request requires, first and foremost, familiarity with the identifier standard and its usage. > ]] > > As a librarian with a background in software engineering I feel that both points are valid. In order to foster uptake of the URN specifications among groups who are not familiar with the IETF, it is important to be able to point (non-technical) implementers to the background information; it is valuable and important and must not be lost. OTOH it is very well possible that engineers outside the cultural heritage sector are not willing to read a 30 page specification in order to distill out the four pages of information they need to complete their task; the result could be a lack of uptake within that group. As a compromise: Could it be an option to let the RFC focus on the technical implementation and to factor out the background information into a separate document and refer to it as a non-normative reference in the RFC? If the background document is given a URN:NBN and we offer resolving through e. g. http://nbn-resolving.org we would even have a nice showcase what an impl ementat ion could look like. > ... Of course a document providing rational and background makes sense. It could be an RFC, too. Also note that every IETF document already has a URN via . Best regards, Julian