Re: [apps-discuss] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lanthaler-profile-registry-01.txt

"Markus Lanthaler" <> Fri, 24 May 2013 02:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A1D321F9434 for <>; Thu, 23 May 2013 19:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.15
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hgDlUdiAyJFY for <>; Thu, 23 May 2013 19:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBDD921F90D2 for <>; Thu, 23 May 2013 19:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MgaEb-1UrTEl26kh-00Nzve for <>; Fri, 24 May 2013 04:15:36 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 May 2013 02:15:36 -0000
Received: from (EHLO Vostro3500) [] by (mp020) with SMTP; 24 May 2013 04:15:36 +0200
X-Authenticated: #419883
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX180L5QNxys0NxzHXr+2hz+DvLuOgn0qxfqIYXwacO IniwSwUrr8s4DO
From: "Markus Lanthaler" <>
To: "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 19:15:33 -0700
Message-ID: <003b01ce5824$94973ed0$bdc5bc70$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac5WdqOHFEprQlH8Qd+ci+IJhWdpdgBrPjrw
Content-Language: de
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: 'Barry Leiba' <>, 'IETF Apps Discuss' <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lanthaler-profile-registry-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 02:15:44 -0000

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:58 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Hi Markus, sorry for the delayed reply.

No problem. I have been quite busy with other things myself as well.

> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Markus Lanthaler
> > Thanks for your your support Dave.
> > 
> > Barry, Murray: How do we proceed? Is there anything I can/should
> > do at this point?
> There hasn't been much expression of interest in supporting this
> document in terms of reviews.  Only one person other than you
> committed to doing so, though a couple of people did say they felt
> this was procedurally the right place to do the work.

Yes. Unfortunately that's true. If I understood Barry correctly, the
alternative would be to take the URN sub-namespace out and just request the
creation of the registry which could be done without the WG adopting it,

> I'll pose the question again: Does the WG feel that this is something
> we should process here?  Are there people (other than Dave Cridland)
> willing to commit time to doing reviews and commenting?

Maybe it helps if I quickly sum up what this I-D is about.

First of all, this I-D establishes a registry for profile URIs as defined in
RFC6906. Since profile IRIs don't have to be dereferenceable I think it
makes sense to establish a registry which can be used to locate the
specification defining a specific profile URI.

The second thing this I-D does (and that's the reason why it needs to be
adopted by the WG) is to reserve a IETF URN sub-namespace
(urn:ietf:params:profile) that can be used in the future to define profile
URIs in RFCs. Those URIs would look as follows:


Markus Lanthaler