Re: [apps-discuss] FW: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-05.txt

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

On 29/03/2015 20:59, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Sunday, March 29, 2015 15:05 +0100 Alexey Melnikov
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 27/03/2015 19:29, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>> I will send email responses to the feedback received with
>>>> what we did. I may not get those out today though. But I
>>>> think the doc should be ready for the IESG telechat.
>>> Thanks.  I've issued the ballot; I'll wait to change the
>>> state until I hear that your co-authors & shepherd are OK
>>> with it.
>> This is almost perfect :-).
>>
>> A couple of comments:
>> ...
>> Here is a real world example of a problem with this text. SIDR
>> WG decided to use rsync protocol, they needed to use rsync
>> URIs. rsync URIs are currently provisional, defined in an
>> Informational RFC.  So this text is basically saying that
>> under the new rule the registration have to be upgraded to
>> Permanent, allowing the expert reviewer (no disrespect to
>> Graham or his future replacement) to be a person that blocks
>> consensus of a WG to use a particular technology. I find this
>> to be problematic.
>>
>> Do people agree that this is problematic?
> Yes.
>
> At the risk of tossing a spanner toward the works, one more
> issue that seems to me very significant:
>
> Larry Masinter has raised several issues in the URNBIS WG in
> which he claims that draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg
> constrains what that WG is proposing to do with URNs [1].  I
> also believe that some of his comments mix up registration of
> schemes (e.g., "urn:") with registrations of URN namespaces and
> NIDs  I think those issues need to be considered in that WG.
> However, procedurally, it seems to me that either:
John, from looking at the list of changes since RFC 4395 in 
draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg, I don't see anything obvious that 
would break URNs.

But reading [1], here is my personal opinion:

1. Use of “/“ - I agree with Larry that this should be fixed in the 
draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn. URNs are either hierarchical or they 
are not. They can't be "sort of hierarchical".
2. Use of “#” - I think this needs to be discussed. I agree that there 
is an issue, but I am not sure about solutions yet.
3. Update of formal namespaces with ‘Expert Review’ - I agree with you 
that what draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg says has no impact on URN 
namespaces. However, I agree with Larry that a similar solution should 
(SHOULD ;-)) be used for URNs.

The issue #1 is not really new to draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg. I 
am not sure about #2. If it is, it also need to be listed in the 
"changes since" section.

[snip]
> [1]
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg02873.html
>
>