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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 09 January 2020 02:22 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4983E120142 for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 18:22:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DftbAkpG4HOs for <art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 18:22:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638E7120020 for <art@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 18:22:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.142.251]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 0092MPkQ022005 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 18:22:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1578536556; x=1578622956; i=@elandsys.com; bh=1OlXD1W2tCNXsXxEO27nNDYfh6rkLN/+CUGqwEigX8A=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=eqwU4q/FVBN2+2rzQCggEaHtkNsgi9oa4Cc+gG1m+h0JDy4J7h/G1uRPFe+RX8xjE B1vm65jRoc58F9rWcz3r+RHjSv96hglRze757Ehwq40ij2HfXDvkZlda0+QCVOmqrO 10/YFkOKDSpbyFU/IjWBcb5TaVJjOOeT86LYLlDM=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200108174717.08105d68@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 18:21:55 -0800
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, art@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <9eda86bf-a31d-a45f-ac8c-98cb7f38e9d1@nostrum.com>
References: <87E116C31DAF1434C3C3937F@PSB> <a267e8d7-e88f-fe84-a3d4-eb12b88a46ad@nostrum.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200107163256.0f2810b8@elandnews.com> <9eda86bf-a31d-a45f-ac8c-98cb7f38e9d1@nostrum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/oR-39yJ2ZZ1Y2FEFlYFfwNwMnSE>
Subject: Re: [art] URNs and Last Call: <draft-nottingham-rfc7320bis-02.txt> (URI Design and Ownership) to Best Current Practice
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2020 02:22:40 -0000

Hi Adam,
At 10:11 AM 08-01-2020, Adam Roach wrote:
>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.

I didn't understand why the above referred to the comments being sent 
at the last minute.  After reading the Last Call announcement again I 
would not disagree that the comments were sent after the last 
minute.  I'd say that it is okay to ignore them as the purpose of 
sending the comments was neither to cause author/participant 
frustration or fatigue nor to delay publication of this draft.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy