Subject: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:34:59 -0700

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: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:21:44 -0700

>draft-saintandre-urnbis-2141bis-00

[snip]

>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: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 10:41:27 -0400

>
> This is conditional on the editor of the document committing to having the

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

---

From: "Svensson, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:50:21 +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 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 implementation could look like.

All the best,

Lars

***Lesen. Hören. Wissen. 100 Jahre Deutsche Nationalbibliothek***
***Reading. Listening. Understanding. A century of the German National Library***

-- 
Dr. Lars G. Svensson
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek / Informationstechnik
http://www.dnb.de/
[email-masked]
http://www.dnb.de/100jahre

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 14:04:09 -0400

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Svensson, Lars <[email-masked]> 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: Bengt Neiss <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:00:07 +0000

All,

Just would like to add that I agree and support the suggested compromise.

//Bengt

> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] För Andrew Newton
> Skickat: den 29 oktober 2012 19:04
> Till: Svensson, Lars
> Kopia: [email-masked]
> Ämne: Re: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document
> 
> > 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,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:10:22 +0100

On 2012-10-29 18:50, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> 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 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2648>.

Best regards, Julian