Re: [art] URNs and Last Call: <draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02.txt> (URI Design and Ownership) to Best Current Practice

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 1/7/20 7:26 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> I was going to comment about the document as there was an announcement 
> about it.  After reading your note I wondered whether it was 
> worthwhile to comment if I have to restrict my comments to what was 
> changed since RFC 7302.


To be clear, what I posted is my personal opinion (as are the following 
two paragraphs), and isn't an official IESG position, much less an IETF 
consensus position. Nothing in the process prevents you from commenting 
on whatever you want.

That said, I think it is a bad idea to slow down or stop improvements to 
a document by asking for unrelated and possibly contentious changes, 
especially at (or, to be honest, somewhat after) the last minute. The 
IETF has a long history of letting "perfect" become the enemy of "good," 
leading to author frustration, participant fatigue, and very long delays 
in publication.

For further clarity: I think it would be completely reasonable to turn 
around and propose yet another bis version of BCP 190 to fix any further 
perceived defects as soon as this version is published, and then work 
towards building consensus that such changes are required. The changes 
in the current bis are needed to address a demonstrable and ongoing 
problem. It seems imprudent to delay needed tactical changes based on 
last-minute musings about what else might be changed.

/a