Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 09 January 2015 03:50 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D531A1B60; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 19:50:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 e9Z5DM5Rk3-9; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 19:50:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22e.google.com (mail-ie0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35CCE1A1A36; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 19:50:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id at20so13162375iec.5; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:50:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6sLGI9jJjUej5tmI/jkvUZaJH7hLXi5uXYltWSjHGBc=; b=hWPHDEdEMU3xAjYq2JC6mx9U13yHgI+GqipAUAAMalpLnyjl+8DhU5Q5XL/xRPCcGM 0h31DcI7CjViDAXIdf3Fe/9qfkPSeQLUBY1HzgX/UkJWLd7TM7Dm+cP4qz4uwHlGnmji J0l7bqJMuJaFM6sH/pKFkjXn2gkWrDAOrPq4/nI3LJEFASk54Th4Go1gXxdGlrtwZCdM +oHeCw5QRdYipHjikFxJvEwaLkOovMeNsRcc+QJC59jd7Ms93C9Xx8KDRsB0tucpTS9t jzw7BZ7SaN4ADyReqwx7wjtQGCvwBbN2nUshKoSWpvr9yAxSGRuocXY928trGg5a1L/6 WgaA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.127.241 with SMTP id nj17mr403548igb.22.1420775434290; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 19:50:34 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.173.83 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Jan 2015 19:50:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1D6DD11066A060EED966B640@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
References: <5499BA48.5060807@andyet.net> <5499BED1.104@seantek.com> <5499C04C.6040605@andyet.net> <549A58E4.30206@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <844A0581B9447C7703322432@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CALaySJJU1XdwrOyTdJ4nobrW8=piQ40Z0=Ay-5KvJY9-iGTEYQ@mail.gmail.com> <1D6DD11066A060EED966B640@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 11:50:34 +0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: hpAp2RfeRpa1H5U2clV19dHK82o
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVAAw7VHg-XqFaDYgPi_OOzScRMAXx6XEwqHh+WFJ6YfEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/3gJNb_d3FDWr9MrYeOm5EWgbGuY>
Cc: urn-nid@ietf.org, "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: urn-nid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussion of new namespace identifiers for URNs <urn-nid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn-nid/>
List-Post: <mailto:urn-nid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 03:50:41 -0000
Closing the loop on this: > Again, I'll defer to your decision about not combining the two > lists now, but note that, IMO, the continued separation is > weakening the work of this WG and increasing the risk of bad > results. Thanks. So here's the deal: 1. The IESG has just given approval for draft-higgs-hbbtv-urn, and as soon as he posts a new version I'm going to let it go out. That covers the in-process ones. 2. I will not start processing on any other URN namespace requests until this WG has finished the update. 3. I'll watch the time-frame on that, and reserve the right to reconsider at some point. Fair? Barry On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:28 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote: > > > --On Monday, December 29, 2014 15:37 -0500 Barry Leiba > <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote: > >>>> So I think we should put "urn@ietf.org" into the draft as the >>>> address for review/discussions of namespace proposals, with >>>> the understanding that this will attain force when the draft >>>> is published as an RFC. >>> >>> Actually, I think we should go a step further. I think we >>> should celebrate the new year and expected rapid progress in >>> the WG >> >> One can hope, and I do. >> >>> by blocking all pending and future URN namespace >>> registrations by referring them to the WG for formal review >>> until 2141bis is approved and becomes the new procedure. >> >> I strongly disagree with blocking pending ones. There is only >> one, and there's no reason to stop it now. If you see >> something wrong with it, say so specifically. If not, let it >> be approved, and we'll deal only with the future now. > > Some observations below, but I'm going to defer to you on this > because I just don't have time or energy to both have a long > discussion and to make progress on the URNBIS WG documents. > >> The urn-nid list is not a secret, and anyone here who thinks >> they need to scrutinize NID requests now more strongly than >> earlier... need only go there and do so. It would be sillier >> to have those requesting NIDs post to and follow this list, >> which goes far beyond what they know or care to know. > > I was actually thinking about the issue the other way around. > It has long been my experience that anyone who is active in the > IETF, knows where to find things or who to ask, and have lots of > time on their hands can find or follow just about anything that > amuses them. There have historically been exceptions, but they > are few and becoming fewer. However, one of several issues > with URNBIS is that people are coming into the discussions with > the perspective of one particular set of needs and advocating > for them on the implicit assumption that, if those needs are > accommodated, everything else will be taken care of [1]. > > The result is that we aren't getting a sufficient number of > perspectives and that increases the risks that we will get > something seriously wrong by omitting consideration of an > important case. So my thinking was to create a situation in > which someone proposing a new URN namespace and NID was more or > less forced, as a condition for getting that NID, to follow and > participate in the WG, primarily wrt two questions: > > (i) Would any of the changes being proposed either hurt > or help setting up their namespace, and any others > similar to it that they can think about, be defined in a > way that is clear, reasonable, and natural? > > (ii) Are there additional changes that should or should > not be made that would be significant from their > perspective? > > Now, one could figure out other ways to ask those questions than > having them emerge in a dialog with the WG, and try to assure > that we got answers, then forcing applicants onto the on the URN > mailing list and holding the applications until the WG signed > off. But, right now, it appears to me that we are not, and have > not been, getting those answers from the perspective of any > recent applicants other than Sean, and he hasn't been involved > for very long. > >>> I note that RFC 3406 not only requires IETF Consensus for new >>> URN namespaces but explicitly quotes the portion of RFC 2434 >>> pointing to referral to relevant WGs, so it has probably been >>> an error to approve new URN namespaces since this "bis" WG >>> came into being without formally asking the WG for it >>> consensus opinion. >> >> Hm. >> I don't see it that way. What I say above has always applied, >> and the existing documents shunted the work over to urn-nid >> for good reason. It's been quite a good thing, really, through >> most of the life of this working group, that it hasn't >> directly been on the hook for reviewing and approving NID >> requests. Participants here can be presumed to know well that >> urn-nid is where those go, and to know well how to go there >> too. > > See above. > >>... >>> but I believe that the IETF Last Call on >>> draft-higgs-hbbtv-urn should not be closed out and an IESG >>> vote taken until this WG has formally reviewed it for >>> conformance to our plans going forward >> >> Please, let's not do that. Let's just include that in the >> above "what's done is done" category, and let it finish. >> Unless you see specific harm, of course, which you absolutely >> should comment on. > > I actually commented, at some length, on the GSMA/IMEI > namespace(s) (now RFC 7254 and 7255). Those comments went > nowhere, including no useful responses from the authors or GSMA. > I considered making a fuss during the last round of IETF Last > Call (and, if necessary, on appeal) and concluded that > > (i) I'm reluctant to tell another standards body what > they need, even though I'd be a lot happier if there was > some sort of roadmap rather than "this request now and > maybe there will be others later"; > (ii) I don't see a particular example, in its own > namespace and with its own NID, as being especially > harmful -- especially since nothing says "you get to use > this as a precedent" -- even if there were serious > problems with it; > (iii) URNBIS wasn't nearly far enough along for us to > have a serious discussion about one GSMA namespace and > qualifiers of various sorts (?-components ?) that would > identify different uses of that namespace. I do note > that, AFAIK, the situation with GSMA is rather different > from that with ISO/TC 46. In the latter case, there are > separate registration authorities and oversight > arrangements for, e.g., ISSN and ISBN. If the > registrations arrived, de novo, under the procedures > outlined in 2141bis (and the former 3406bis), they would > almost certainly arrive from different applicants. > GSMA, again AFAIK, is a little more monolithic, so it > would be reasonable to press for "one organization, one > broad set of topics, one namespace" or at least for an > explanation of why that was not appropriate; > (iv) I just don't have time to both fight individual > URN namespace battles (unless they are obviously > critical-path), try to drag i18n work along, and pay > attention to anything else IETF-related. > > >>... >> I am mostly happy to hold the future requests up, and I think >> it's not unreasonable to do that, provided that we do put a >> time limit on it. > > Again, see the discussion of motivation above. > >> The possible exception is "lex", which has been held up very >> long already. It is, on the other hand, one that I find >> problematic for a number of reasons, and when the authors have >> responded to my last comments to them I'm inclined to ask you, >> John, to be its document shepherd... which may, in itself, >> throw it into the "delayed" pile (if you share my concerns, at >> least some of them, and/or have your own). > > In the interest of future discussion and to keep this note from > getting longer, I'll reply separately on that subject. > > Again, I'll defer to your decision about not combining the two > lists now, but note that, IMO, the continued separation is > weakening the work of this WG and increasing the risk of bad > results. > > best, > john > > > [1] There are more negative versions of that story, including > "as long as my needs are met, I don't care about anything else", > but such hypotheses are unnecessary to my point. > > _______________________________________________ > urn mailing list > urn@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Sean Leonard
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Barry Leiba
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Sean Leonard
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list John C Klensin
- A few quick thoughts on "lex" (was" Re: [urn] con… John C Klensin
- Re: A few quick thoughts on "lex" (was" Re: [urn]… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Barry Leiba
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Sean Leonard
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Barry Leiba
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Sean Leonard
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Barry Leiba