lies about URNs (was Re: Celebrating NAT)

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 7/19/19 12:26 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 7:09 PM Melinda Shore <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On 7/16/19 2:39 PM, Doug Royer wrote:
>     > You can not achieve your goal when you quit. How important are your
>     > goals to you?
>
>     It seems to me that driving away people with energy and
>     ideas because they're not willing to deal with the tone of
>     discussions here (and let's be clear: there are no longer
>     very many organizations in which abusive language or behavior
>     is tolerated) and leave, either to focus on implementation
>     or to take their work to another body, the IETF is the loser,
>     not the person who left.  I worry about several factors
>     degrading the quality of our output and this is certainly one
>     of them.
>
>
> It is probably worthwhile recalling that the Web was originally 
> standardized in IETF. Most of it has left IETF because of the culture 
> issue. Cross area review sounds like a great idea until you end up 
> with people insisting on adding prefixes to distinguish URNs from URLs 
> in the mistaken belief that they are disjoint categories and refusing 
> to accept they are not.

Wow.  That's perhaps the biggest distortion I've ever seen in IETF.

URNs were, by design, disjoint from URLs because URLs did not have the 
properties desired.  You may disagree with the design decision, as did 
at least a few others.  And, sadly, some of those people have managed to 
destroy most of the utility of URNs.   But that feature of URLs was an 
explicit design decision, and efforts by people to sabotage them do 
nothing to change that.

Keith