IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: lies about URNs (was Re: Celebrating NAT)

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Sat, 20 July 2019 16:59 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54E381201B8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 09:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.557
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.091, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 DB3uqbscsQZ6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 09:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-f46.google.com (mail-ot1-f46.google.com [209.85.210.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF7F51200CC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 09:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-f46.google.com with SMTP id z23so7645263ote.13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 09:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=WoUVQZo2vpOOY0Ia5TI7ghmQxyPbO8t/sqL3pKBUaNI=; b=nWa1/MI/6q5bfBGMKYnbe7jgjXAkqTI8KnCrCThAk02PTV/g1Oq3Xo3u0QAXxDPTVy xy8VSITe35YlNWRKNEHyWMAd44oALkG2BbDZQxJioVcJUQ+cQyIp5MkKvNsgobQdIWrk ns3sHHoMh3Mqea4i9abQHgL+3iWy7G+5AnJUrFHPgoEihG/nr1UYKQ3nrjKqtVs4DULR wiMCYVzqXmBkbJbmSfsbSvM92vZRznxDqMFaOk+zDAK1J9uMOyaTzDIkU6dmp190zbA5 W6q042FS/Eov8gtd71E/wGz2uLy6rBYgwZnCwREnR2Dyv/oxzDASHsPYEOjRe4azoup2 GdNg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXIfmkyQoJ7WyU5yaDrdS9OWK21t0L1j8I845QOn+ocG/b6/BpZ x4WR1WXVig11ZNwfiN9MadkZMA4q+qO/wG8BrKbKoXb/
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxBlfzc68kwGdqkz+rSaYxxWVmU8nK+rV5Ly/brKhXf/V07XsMgJEPYfan8L/USHROPjloqLOuRMvjqZjH4u/I=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7d02:: with SMTP id v2mr35266603otn.112.1563641965116; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 09:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6EB5A0D4-DC17-40A8-B144-DC28F81C576A@employees.org> <A6135702-2156-48F1-A5D3-5F5EAE1B12B3@cooperw.in> <e24cae63-1a9b-7160-73cc-77c29e479eed@comcast.net> <9447eb2b-fd9f-4fa7-8e07-0bc0ad118292@gmail.com> <560a8a2b-3ece-4db9-4bf8-f16acbdc27a4@comcast.net> <ac5eec46-85d9-835a-fc53-02bb97fd25ab@gmail.com> <3b5c74d6-e219-512d-1c02-c7c66ca2573e@eff.org> <52052311-c9ed-7bbb-7f7e-edc1b0119075@network-heretics.com> <dcd35f0b-2388-ffbe-2feb-7bb6268e3cf5@eff.org> <02d3fb41-553a-eaf3-e77b-4918955ead48@gmail.com> <CAA=duU145Niuk1UtjvtM+R+LeL4jsE19Vb5=MWkV1MVmgA-LRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgQsz=tgU6xCA5h+kV5HApZfpuU59stEmkmOpcsd2WzsUw@mail.gmail.com> <00dcede6-11a0-6a33-d4b4-ceb413f22874@gmail.com> <21fa0425-ca36-6f65-0585-2ddc64f368db@gmail.com> <CAMm+LwhLyshCfBKvXc+v5YYO+Hv3XeX0__Dp_sC7wqpetCKfog@mail.gmail.com> <9a7b59fa-af27-5f41-b235-dfea6ec82cde@network-heretics.com> <CAMm+Lwh_m8ykjtcPJ4n658N2DpP4+puuXq5KKdNyqUMzVS=f3w@mail.gmail.com> <f96e7be3-46dd-5ef0-f383-2fa73c496deb@network-heretics.com>
In-Reply-To: <f96e7be3-46dd-5ef0-f383-2fa73c496deb@network-heretics.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:59:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwhjHrJqYAzvtpVx2R3k-Z9Eb+K5B9KFHJpZxyD9E9ESKw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: lies about URNs (was Re: Celebrating NAT)
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e30071058e1fc3a1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OpuqPK3nXO8ZYLFGEjq8F72IMIg>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 16:59:27 -0000

I am making a formal complaint of bullying here. I did not accuse anyone of
lying. I gave an opportunity to retract the libel, Mr Moore has refused.


It was precisely this attitude and the fact that Mr Moore was an AD at the
time that led many people working on the Web to conclude that IETF was not
going to be a viable venue.

It is one thing for there to be 'robust discussion', quite another when an
AD is expressing their opinion in this manner. Because then the process
really isn't a consensus process any more.

I spent a great deal of time working on my theory of URIs and read close to
50 books on Semiotics and related work. I never saw any evidence that the
fixed opinions others had on the subject were the result of similar
research.


Whether the nature of the IESG's behavior led the Web people to leave or
not is a matter of opinion, that URNs and URLs do not constitute disjoint
semantic sets is not. Whether or not a URI can be resolved or not is
determined only by the characteristics of the available resolution
services. It has always been the case that many URLs do not work in any
browser and many pure URNs will be resolved perfectly happily if you plug
them into a browser (because they call on a search engine).

That was not in fact even the lunacy I was even pointing to which was that
we should be typing url:http://cnn.com/ and urn:isbn:294849, a proposal
that was made loudly and repeatedly and was correctly ignored.



On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 11:02 AM Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
wrote:

> It's probably better if we don't continue the conversation.   I don't
> really see the point in rehashing things that are 25 years old, and are now
> water under the bridge.   But neither did I think your statement should
> stand without being refuted.
>
> You may now have the last word if you wish.
>
> Keith
> On 7/20/19 10:55 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> Fix the damn subject line and apologize if you want to continue this
> conversation.
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email