Re: [Uri-review] draft-larmouth-oid-iri-04

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

I wasn’t really watching the cc list, but John, if you want to forward any of my comments to this list.

Note that the IRI working group is chartered to update the URI scheme registration doc to pull in the I18N registration advice.




1) The WG has been approved in January, and is chaired by Ted Hardie.

(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2010Jan/0021.html>)

Charter: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/charters





2) Discussions will take place on the existing W3C public-iri mailing

list (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/>). Note that this

means that contributions on that mailing list are covered by Note Well

as any other IETF WG mailing list

(<http://www.ietf.org/about/note-well.html>)

(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2010Jan/0022.html>)



3) Martin Dürst has published sthe latest edits to

draft-duerst-iri-bis as the first WG draft:

<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis-00>.



4) An issue tracker and version control haven't been set up yet. I

expect them to be available on <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>.



5) The IETF meets in Anaheim in the week starting March 21

(<http://www.ietf.org/meeting/77/>). A meeting slot for the IRI Working

Group has been requested, but the agenda has not been published yet.


--
http://larry.masinter.net

From: John Larmouth [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:34 AM
Cc: [e-mail]; Olivier DUBUISSON; Lisa Rajchel; Larry Masinter
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] draft-larmouth-oid-iri-04

Patrik,

I thank you very much for persevering with this.

I am sure that you and others will be aware that there have been further ineractions with Lisa, Larry, and others on this topic after the original uri-review posting of this material.

In other words, whilst it would be good to sort out why the original postings did not work, there is a fair bit of water that has gone under the bridge since!  (We can handle that!)

(NO REPLY NEEDED.)

John L


Patrik Fältström wrote:

Olivier have some problems posting to the list, and we do not know why. While investigating, I hereby forward his email to the list and hope I am more successful in doing the actual posting.

   Patrik - list administrator

Begin forwarded message:


From: <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: 20 januari 2010 11.23.24 CET
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: LARMOUTH John <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: draft-larmouth-oid-iri-04

Folks,

we have just posted -04 of the I-D.

The following text contains in Section B a copy of (hopefully all) previous comments from uri-review, and our response, with Section A summarizing the actions taken in preparation of version -04.

Thanks,
O. Dubuisson and J. Larmouth

(Section A below contains a summary of the main points made in comments and their resolution.
Section B below is a collection of comments made and a short statement of the changes made as
a result of those comment.  The numbering of Section A is synchronized with the numbering of Section B.)

A.    Discussion of main points
======================

A1.   Review comments on 03 draft
==========================

We are not providing a URL into the uri-review discussions, as these are all included in Section B below.

A2.    Editorial
===========

All proposed editorial changes have been applied in the production of the 04 version.

A3.    Comparison of OID-IRIs
 ======================

The ITU-T | ISO/IEC group has discussed the various comments on comparison, and reaffirms that the Object Identifier Resolution System (ORS) text (using DNS lookup to convert the IRI into a canonical form) is fully satisfactory for all uses cases that are required.  Text has been added in 04 on the mapping performed in the ORS from an IRI expressed as a series of (abstract) Unicode characters into an ASCII form suitable for DNS lookup (this uses the transformation specified in IETF RFC 3490, clause 4 which references IETF RFC 3454 (case folding) and IETF RFC 3492 (punycode encoding).  It also
uses the Compatibility Decomposition, followed by Canonical Composition (KFCD) specified by Unicode 5.2.

A4.    oid://xxx or oid:/xxx
===================

On the // issue, we have oscillated on that over the production process, and our latest advice is as recorded in 03 - we use only "oid:/Alerting/....." for example.  There has been no change for the 04 posting.