From nobody Wed Feb 1 09:17:21 2017 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 B7D101294D8 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:17:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OBvjEwLaT5Oz for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:17:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-io0-x22b.google.com (mail-io0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDE2D1294D6 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:17:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id j13so161395755iod.3 for ; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:17:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=uIfFrC+EoO9y7oPDcWIlUSXe8uofk1Z7JlvNrMz2NCc=; b=g8/xhZ0NosR6153G3GTEPhtzGwuMKCYmHNWMFqq6nrohTkO5cm6eZJl5nr+Fcr6DhC NJPvj5kQUeOxc9MPMNLfyS5qn2giLwtDVIKWjYwdkVk/m2RGFPu4+uZSrrJkE8gwFcpm JqQJa6Xx4z08EXK24Dv38P6wk/nLqlj9kHRfvnVGmanVl+UsumiNxfTs+W6CuiZgIrcF u04gRUPknSOaO6lvktynWhtJu6igM9j+YQ37gefN33QuZbFLxu6WMZmA+RJl2KA/ofYr WRKWTQa7khy1eWmTgYKJEJjZ5fsEq6lfbsS1YLXMSHKszNaEtGtaSU+J6yc4PdbEITBf mDQQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=uIfFrC+EoO9y7oPDcWIlUSXe8uofk1Z7JlvNrMz2NCc=; b=I9R7GMImGble6B1RJCmsixLkoXVnnYwt8MPVQ9f5swmfVwLj9lQCqYe7FZlXxN/txK FVuexYqPu37S8VX6WBUtfmTUHGLsJsf1ou5FWp0lP+zLfxcZvnevsAnztdkEOGP2s76F U5nHMzT1xlOFsdKuZ2u1Bv/VrdsEj1wqH0s1zlpuMQa3AdDT47zmMI3LuSxj7AApf5eq Kyzn9w94rPWeiOstJ0Acx4R8MMS7HYmX25yhr6perhhouTCg1+8oAaAKzSnL7aOg64F9 Gpha4ZnliA7usgzUkIB+YvJ6RrSA8Tl0WXOKBB0e/KQq7eurinwXWE/jrGZtZfzeZroK 3O5A== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIq2kecLNnGhFU+VIuqBwxT1gTjBtZpk2IyonAyUQyGBv2T7SQHJ6Xb/vmqJaY9ace+vyC8+rzZEzxKoQ== X-Received: by 10.107.47.195 with SMTP id v64mr2887871iov.85.1485969437048; Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:17:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.136.18 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:17:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Barry Leiba Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:17:16 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: YgKEn_BXtbo6jxEaYwznxVWYywg Message-ID: To: "urn@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [urn] draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-19 X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 17:17:20 -0000 > The chairs believe that this version reflects what was decided during > the (now-long-ago) conference call plus the list discussion since > then, and that the document is now done. There may, of course, be > some "oopsies" that have crept in with the changes, so we will make a > call for final comments. Let's call it a "working group last call for > typos and major objections." We do not expect to see quibbles that > have been discussed before, re-thinking of things that does not > reflect a serious error in where we went with it, or other things of > that sort. > > And, so, thus begins a last call of that nature, a last call for major > objections and eyes looking for errors that have crept in. That call > will run until... oh, let's make it easy and say 31 January. > Everyone, please do have one last look. There will be an IETF last > call, of course, but let's please not have working group participants > waiting until then. The comment period has ended, and we've had some comments. Considering versions -18 and -19, we've heard from Julian, Henry, Lars, and Juha -- thanks very much to all of you for the reviews, comments, discussion. As I noted above, we're in the aftermath of the conference call, in which we very usefully hashed out many things and came to agreement. Some results of that: 1. The chairs are happy to consider no comments now to indicate acceptance that the current text does reflect consensus, as we came to in the conference call. 2. While all reviews and comments are welcomed, appreciated, and considered, we're past the time of responding separately to every point and addressing things that are minor points or that have been batted around before, picking on details of text beyond what's necessary for clarity, and that sort of thing. In the interest of moving forward and understanding that we'll never get to where everyone thinks the document is perfect, we expect the authors to use their good judgment on a final update, and the chairs will review that and request publication soon. Barry, as chair From nobody Thu Feb 2 08:33:49 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietf.org Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D916012973E; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 08:33:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.42.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148605322488.13844.18346075663863968172.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 08:33:44 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-20.txt X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 16:33:45 -0000 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 of the IETF. Title : Uniform Resource Names (URNs) Authors : Peter Saint-Andre John C Klensin Filename : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-20.txt Pages : 43 Date : 2017-02-02 Abstract: A Uniform Resource Name (URN) is a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) that is assigned under the "urn" URI scheme and a particular URN namespace, with the intent that the URN will be a persistent, location-independent resource identifier. With regard to URN syntax, this document defines the canonical syntax for URNs (in a way that is consistent with URI syntax), specifies methods for determining URN- equivalence, and discusses URI conformance. With regard to URN namespaces, this document specifies a method for defining a URN namespace and associating it with a namespace identifier, and describes procedures for registering namespace identifiers with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). This document obsoletes both RFC 2141 and RFC 3406. 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: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-20 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-20 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Sat Feb 4 09:23:37 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietf.org Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83215129491 for ; Sat, 4 Feb 2017 09:23:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.42.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148622901553.2868.6811771186754963790.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:23:35 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [urn] Milestones changed for urnbis WG X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2017 17:23:35 -0000 Changed milestone "WGLC on URN Namespace Definition (3406bis)", resolved as "Done". Changed milestone "WGLC on URN Syntax (2141bis)", resolved as "Done". URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/urnbis/charter/ From nobody Mon Feb 13 07:08:53 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietf.org Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18C51296A6; Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:08:51 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.43.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Sender: Message-ID: <148699853178.24969.7610250025952470052.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 07:08:51 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: urn@ietf.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, barryleiba@computer.org, draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn@ietf.org, urnbis-chairs@ietf.org Subject: [urn] Last Call: (Uniform Resource Names (URNs)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:08:52 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Uniform Resource Names, Revised WG (urnbis) to consider the following document: - 'Uniform Resource Names (URNs)' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-02-27. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract A Uniform Resource Name (URN) is a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) that is assigned under the "urn" URI scheme and a particular URN namespace, with the intent that the URN will be a persistent, location-independent resource identifier. With regard to URN syntax, this document defines the canonical syntax for URNs (in a way that is consistent with URI syntax), specifies methods for determining URN- equivalence, and discusses URI conformance. With regard to URN namespaces, this document specifies a method for defining a URN namespace and associating it with a namespace identifier, and describes procedures for registering namespace identifiers with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). This document obsoletes both RFC 2141 and RFC 3406. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From nobody Tue Feb 21 14:36:20 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietf.org Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9CA129D74 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2017 14:36:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.45.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148771657890.19130.11112083401917787960.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 14:36:18 -0800 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: Subject: [urn] Milestones changed for urnbis WG X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 22:36:19 -0000 Changed milestone "Update URN Namespace Definition (3406bis)", resolved as "Done", added draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn to milestone. Changed milestone "Collect and settle fragment/query requirements", resolved as "Done", added draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn to milestone. Changed milestone "WGLC on URN Namespace Definition (3406bis)", added draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn to milestone. Changed milestone "Update URN Syntax (2141bis) based on resolution of requirements", resolved as "Done", added draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn to milestone. Changed milestone "WGLC on URN Syntax (2141bis)", added draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn to milestone. Changed milestone "WGLC on URN Namespace Registration Transition", set due date to May 2017 from January 2014, added draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition to milestone. URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/urnbis/about/ From nobody Mon Feb 27 06:30:17 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietf.org Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9717012A04A; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 06:30:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148820581161.21181.15231287389624880850.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 06:30:11 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-21.txt X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:30:11 -0000 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 of the IETF. Title : Uniform Resource Names (URNs) Authors : Peter Saint-Andre John C Klensin Filename : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-21.txt Pages : 43 Date : 2017-02-27 Abstract: A Uniform Resource Name (URN) is a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) that is assigned under the "urn" URI scheme and a particular URN namespace, with the intent that the URN will be a persistent, location-independent resource identifier. With regard to URN syntax, this document defines the canonical syntax for URNs (in a way that is consistent with URI syntax), specifies methods for determining URN- equivalence, and discusses URI conformance. With regard to URN namespaces, this document specifies a method for defining a URN namespace and associating it with a namespace identifier, and describes procedures for registering namespace identifiers with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). This document obsoletes both RFC 2141 and RFC 3406. 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: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-21 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-21 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Mon Feb 27 06:56:36 2017 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 D904F12A0AB for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 06:56:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uo-z0AlnN0gg for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 06:56:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 700CD129E53 for ; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 06:56:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.252.137.70] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1ciMj1-00056L-3q for urn@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:56:31 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:56:24 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: urn@ietf.org Message-ID: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.70 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Archived-At: Subject: [urn] draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-21.txt and change information X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:56:35 -0000 Hi. The post-last-call version of draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn has been posted. For the information of the WG, it responds to all Last Call comments posted during the Last Call period. I believe that all of those comments and discussions were posted to this mailing list but, in case anyone feels like checking, the ones that affected the document were certainly posted to the IETF one. The changes are all editorial, including getting the one instance of "Basic Latin repertoire" out of the document and adding a paragraph to the IANA Considerations section to repeat and clarify the mailing list to be used for new registrations (and request a tombstone or alias for the old one). best, john p.s. For those who are wondering, the other significant document in the WG's queue, draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition is awaiting some text and signoff from Juha, who has been on vacation. I hope to have a version that should be ready for final WG review posted within the next week or so. ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Date: Monday, February 27, 2017 06:30 -0800 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-21.txt 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 of the IETF. Title : Uniform Resource Names (URNs) Authors : Peter Saint-Andre John C Klensin Filename : draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-21.txt Pages : 43 Date : 2017-02-27 Abstract: A Uniform Resource Name (URN) is a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) that is assigned under the "urn" URI scheme and a particular URN namespace, with the intent that the URN will be a persistent, location-independent resource identifier. With regard to URN syntax, this document defines the canonical syntax for URNs (in a way that is consistent with URI syntax), specifies methods for determining URN- equivalence, and discusses URI conformance. With regard to URN namespaces, this document specifies a method for defining a URN namespace and associating it with a namespace identifier, and describes procedures for registering namespace identifiers with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). This document obsoletes both RFC 2141 and RFC 3406. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-ur n/ There's also a htmlized version available at: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-21 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-u rn-21 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ urn mailing list urn@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn ---------- End Forwarded Message ---------- From nobody Tue Feb 28 16:37:24 2017 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietf.org Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B04671297F0; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:37:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Stephen Farrell To: "The IESG" X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.46.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <148832863670.29552.9014381848292739838.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:37:16 -0800 Archived-At: Cc: urn@ietf.org, barryleiba@computer.org, draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn@ietf.org, urnbis-chairs@ietf.org Subject: [urn] Stephen Farrell's Abstain on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-21: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 00:37:17 -0000 Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-21: Abstain When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I am not convinced that doubling the amount of text vs. 2141 and 3406 here is really helpful. The draft also seems to spend more time saying what it does not specify rather than what it does. My not-that-well-informed guess is that this product of stalwart effort does not improve the Internet, despite the earnest extended multi-year efforts of the few folks involved. I'd further bet that the world in general would be fine if this did not become and RFC. Normally, I'd just ballot no-objection and let that go, but given that this has consumed cycles for 6 years that could perhaps have been more usefully engaged in dealing with 3986 issues, I think abstaining is a better position to take on the off-chance that that sends some tiny form of signal. (Apologies to those who engaged in this work, I don't mean any disrespect, but I don't think the result here is really worth the effort expended.) - What deployed code supports the ?+ or ?= constructs? If some arguably "important" code does, I'd change my abstain to a no-objection, as then there'd be an at least modest new feature to justify the new RFC. - Section 8 should I think recognise the dangers inherent in long-term stable identifiers helping with (re-)identification of people and/or network entities. While that is not the "fault" of URNs, I'd say it is worth warning folks who may just possibly think twice before creating new URNs with those failings. (Though I recognise that that may call for a reference to RFC6919;-) From nobody Tue Feb 28 23:16:24 2017 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 F39C21294B9; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:16:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=helsinkifi.onmicrosoft.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LaByStbGTqNu; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:16:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from EUR03-AM5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr30129.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.3.129]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D259D1294A7; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:16:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=HelsinkiFI.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-helsinki-fi; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=Eyx4W6qqEkf97oM/T0a39iy7J0DAd5d5ZljZZ6vwc48=; b=ghdxqW0ZxX8ZFeMAM8K5WX0gG+l2D4kqhcWQwRNY7fDRGouuLMfEKrDfzd/JzERfSVhScjZONotR0s9oDhZ9TkxSMfUiggbQa7aJbSp565FQ40B+JOpfcV52Wdb45V5yvR0sOWFZdHQmTy3fAhpI1g/TlvVaaN43XSvH9QPciUM= Received: from HE1PR0701MB2603.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.168.187.138) by HE1PR0701MB2602.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.168.187.137) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.947.2; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:16:12 +0000 Received: from HE1PR0701MB2603.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.187.138]) by HE1PR0701MB2603.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.187.138]) with mapi id 15.01.0947.012; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:16:12 +0000 From: "Hakala, Juha E" To: Stephen Farrell , The IESG Thread-Topic: [urn] Stephen Farrell's Abstain on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-21: (with COMMENT) Thread-Index: AQHSkiQE/4pSxXZTRUu2OclY+YTBjaF/giRg Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:16:12 +0000 Message-ID: References: <148832863670.29552.9014381848292739838.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <148832863670.29552.9014381848292739838.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: fi-FI, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: cs.tcd.ie; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;cs.tcd.ie; dmarc=none action=none header.from=helsinki.fi; x-originating-ip: [128.214.71.222] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b21222bb-4384-4dd1-1c12-08d46072d795 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001); SRVR:HE1PR0701MB2602; x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; HE1PR0701MB2602; 7:U9PEZhffkyeBkqzWv4fLd5tNt9i+eEUOlAO5jgZXvUkrB+ehK81zxLMRzieOEFEywsUnr1XYg4fNE+u8lf1LekcN92TsMkboRCwCU0ywuUPnoLZNaoY7Avg5DxGWUDLOr036+Bnf05KKynuduceOdIZmBbjUBsZSS8WsN7m9QvUBzxzQbPrnN7HbAQGK2bYenQP6jKGp0QHWuNkvpZP2j5ZBU8yRTau/+vro3+6MQgmgT4NxpeuH3BLfrQeutOof6wCmfZoguwAwABPDhvTsJJR39tPYmhwlsXf6cCvxgXNKpPfeYKEK7ITlLvi7AdQzSxbqtcN2FuB5ZHa/k0EOyw== x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(120809045254105)(100405760836317); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040375)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6041248)(20161123558025)(20161123560025)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(6072148); SRVR:HE1PR0701MB2602; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:HE1PR0701MB2602; x-forefront-prvs: 0233768B38 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(39450400003)(13464003)(7696004)(5660300001)(2950100002)(230783001)(3280700002)(2906002)(3660700001)(305945005)(7736002)(6246003)(86362001)(53546006)(53936002)(38730400002)(55016002)(189998001)(81166006)(99286003)(9686003)(25786008)(54356999)(74316002)(76176999)(6306002)(54906002)(6506006)(50986999)(92566002)(8936002)(8676002)(31430400001)(66066001)(2900100001)(122556002)(33656002)(6436002)(106116001)(4326008)(74482002)(229853002)(77096006)(102836003)(3846002)(6116002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:HE1PR0701MB2602; H:HE1PR0701MB2603.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: helsinki.fi X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Mar 2017 07:16:12.3192 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 98ae7559-10dc-4288-8e2e-4593e62fe3ee X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR0701MB2602 Archived-At: Cc: "urn@ietf.org" , "urnbis-chairs@ietf.org" , "draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn@ietf.org" , "barryleiba@computer.org" Subject: Re: [urn] Stephen Farrell's Abstain on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-21: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:16:19 -0000 Hello Stephen,=20 Two comments:=20 As regards this, > - What deployed code supports the ?+ or ?=3D constructs? If some arguabl= y > "important" code does, I'd change my abstain to a no-objection, as then > there'd be an at least modest new feature to justify the new RFC. the National Library of Finland intends to revise its current URN resolver = so that it supports r- and q-components. Funding for this work has been obt= ained from EU project EUDAT, which applies persistent identifiers to resear= ch data sets. The work will start as soon as RFC2141bis has become an Inter= net standard.=20 As far as I know, there are no existing implementations of upcoming URN syn= tax features yet, since the URN user community has been patiently waiting f= or the final version of the URN syntax. Many of us are national libraries, = so our time scale tends to be different from that of most other Internet or= ganizations ;-). Once RFC2141bis has been published as an Internet standard= , we still need to define the syntax for specifying resolution services and= service parameters in the r-component. This should not take much time, and= it can be done during the application development. =20 Concerning this:=20 > Normally, I'd just ballot no-objection and let that go, but given that th= is has > consumed cycles for 6 years that could perhaps have been more usefully > engaged in dealing with > 3986 issues, I think abstaining is a better position to take on the off-c= hance > that that sends some tiny form of signal. URNBIS needed 6 years partly because there were many 3986-based URN issues = the WG had to solve before sufficient consensus was found. =20 Just to give one example, URI syntax says that:=20 "The fragment identifier component of a URI allows indirect identification of a secondary resource by reference to a primary resource and additional identifying information." =20 However, f-component in the URN syntax has no role in identification, since= fragment identifiers would have extended the scope of many existing standa= rd identifier systems in an unacceptable manner. For instance, ISBNs identi= fy books but not their component parts, so a URN:ISBN with an f-component s= till identifies a book as a whole, and the f-component indicates just a loc= ation within the book. =20 The communities using URNs and other persistent identifiers (national libra= ries, national archives, universities, research institutions, scientific pu= blishers etc.) need an updated URN syntax specification, not an improved ve= rsion of URI syntax - which might of course be very useful for many other W= eb users out there. Be that as it may, I am glad that URI syntax revision i= s outside the scope of the URNBIS WG. =20 All the best,=20 Juha Hakala =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: urn [mailto:urn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell > Sent: 1. maaliskuuta 2017 2:37 > To: The IESG > Cc: urn@ietf.org; barryleiba@computer.org; draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis- > urn@ietf.org; urnbis-chairs@ietf.org > Subject: [urn] Stephen Farrell's Abstain on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-= urn- > 21: (with COMMENT) >=20 > Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-21: Abstain >=20 > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all ema= il > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introdu= ctory > paragraph, however.) >=20 >=20 > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >=20 >=20 > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn/ >=20 >=20 >=20 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 >=20 > I am not convinced that doubling the amount of text vs. 2141 and 3406 her= e is > really helpful. The draft also seems to spend more time saying what it do= es > not specify rather than what it does. My not-that-well-informed guess is = that > this product of stalwart effort does not improve the Internet, despite th= e > earnest extended multi-year efforts of the few folks involved. I'd furthe= r bet > that the world in general would be fine if this did not become and RFC. > Normally, I'd just ballot no-objection and let that go, but given that th= is has > consumed cycles for 6 years that could perhaps have been more usefully > engaged in dealing with > 3986 issues, I think abstaining is a better position to take on the off-c= hance > that that sends some tiny form of signal. (Apologies to those who engaged= in > this work, I don't mean any disrespect, but I don't think the result here= is > really worth the effort expended.) >=20 > - What deployed code supports the ?+ or ?=3D constructs? If some arguabl= y > "important" code does, I'd change my abstain to a no-objection, as then > there'd be an at least modest new feature to justify the new RFC. >=20 > - Section 8 should I think recognise the dangers inherent in long-term st= able > identifiers helping with (re-)identification of people and/or network ent= ities. > While that is not the "fault" of URNs, I'd say it is worth warning folks = who may > just possibly think twice before creating new URNs with those failings. > (Though I recognise that that may call for a reference to RFC6919;-) >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > urn mailing list > urn@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn