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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,
At 08:33 PM 08-01-2020, John C Klensin wrote:
> > 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.
>
>My apologies, but I think the above is sufficiently hypothetical
>to be, in practice, spurious. draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis is an
>AD-sponsored document, sponsored, if I read the tracker
>correctly, by you.   Now, suppose that someone were to post an
>I-D tomorrow, or at some point pre-publication of
>draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis, proposing to replace it with a new
>version and address other issues.    Would you be willing to
>AD-sponsor that draft or would you (as I hope you would) say
>"the community has spent enough time on this issue for a while,
>so, unless a critical emergency causing serious harm can be
>demonstrated, let's let it sit for a year or three" (or impose
>criteria for level of obvious community interest that would
>amount to the same thing).  Even if your answer is "yes, you
>would sponsor it", can you guarantee that someone would do so
>after March 27 (versus putting it off for an extended period or
>forever)?

It would be very difficult to justify that there is a critical 
emergency causing harm when a document is not a technical 
specification.  If I understand what was proposed, I would have to 
work towards building consensus.  I'd say that the "perfect is the 
enemy of good" would likely not be applied then, and that is based on 
past experience.

>We've seen enough things die in the IETF because the problem
>wasn't big and pressing enough and no AD felt like sponsoring
>the work (for whatever good, bad, or arbitrary reasons) that

Yes.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy