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

"Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> Fri, 24 May 2013 02:15 UTC

Return-Path: <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A1D321F9434 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 19:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hgDlUdiAyJFY for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 19:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBDD921F90D2 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2013 19:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.20]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MgaEb-1UrTEl26kh-00Nzve for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 May 2013 04:15:36 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 May 2013 02:15:36 -0000
Received: from 67.23.197.94.freewirebroadband.com (EHLO Vostro3500) [67.23.197.94] by mail.gmx.net (mp020) with SMTP; 24 May 2013 04:15:36 +0200
X-Authenticated: #419883
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX180L5QNxys0NxzHXr+2hz+DvLuOgn0qxfqIYXwacO IniwSwUrr8s4DO
From: "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
To: "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" <superuser@gmail.com>
References: <516e8a54.45f7440a.7dcc.1253SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <CAL0qLwb+9CYnOYw9kcMdzZvyPagcUrhxUkmOiMZNAXpzFe6MYA@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVC+rr0ZwBRk0jit7Ye-7H6D8yawiW7OG2RFhns5jqbQyQ@mail.gmail.com> <516f06c9.c1c20e0a.46f3.ffffb0bfSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <CAL0qLwY5LHuVdk__ySDDxBjsyfV0c5yTxZSRKj+Me5b+-2TsqA@mail.gmail.com> <51782a0a.21f2440a.747e.5f13SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <CAKHUCzyEy33RMt-cmRPwy00xyE4qP1GYMmMv475XQQnKFu+CaQ@mail.gmail.com> <5182b488.c4d60e0a.1ff8.0d8cSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <CAL0qLwaNBZECNY5gjXjTfmkQ1QB6bptCM8XFK7vV-KfAL9G70w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwaNBZECNY5gjXjTfmkQ1QB6bptCM8XFK7vV-KfAL9G70w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 19:15:33 -0700
Message-ID: <003b01ce5824$94973ed0$bdc5bc70$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
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' <barryleiba@computer.org>, 'IETF Apps Discuss' <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lanthaler-profile-registry-01.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=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,
right?


> 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:
urn:ietf:params:profile:example


Thanks,
Markus




--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler