Re: Revision of RFC 7302

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Ted,
>
> I appreciate the quick review.
>
> > Looking through this, it appears that only the process for identifier
> resolution has changed.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Given that, a much shorter document updating RFC 7302 noting the change
> might be simpler.
>
> This would require the reader to consult two documents -- not sure
> this is fatal however.
>
> If the "updates" approach is chosen, would IANA [1] continue to
> reference RFC 7302, or would instead reference the updated RFC?
>
> It would reference them both; see the dvb entry for an example.


> [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml
>
> > But given the general stability requirements for URNs, highlighting that
> the only
> > changes are to resolution might be useful.
>
> If the "obsolete" path is chosen, perhaps there is a way to explicitly
> highlight the (very limited) changes, beyond the short description in
> the abstract?
>
> You can include an appendix with a list of the changes.  That's
non-normative,
but it would likely be consulted by anyone who wanted to simply check on the
relationship between the two.


> IMHO it would be ideal to update RFC 7302 in place, since the changes
> do not impact identifier semantics, but this is not possible, right?
>
> That's correct; once issues, RFCs don't change in place.

regard,

Ted Hardie



> Best,
>
> -- Pierre
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Thanks for the pointer.  The RFC series allows a document to update a
> > previous document, as well as along one to obsolete a previous document.
> > Looking through this, it appears that only the process for identifier
> > resolution has changed.  Given that, a much shorter document updating RFC
> > 7302 noting the change might be simpler.
> >
> > Generally speaking this is a stylistic choice, and there is certainly no
> > requirement to take that path.  But given the general stability
> requirements
> > for URNs, highlighting that the only changes are to resolution might be
> > useful.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Ted Hardie
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux <
> [e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Good morning/evening,
> >>
> >> Please find at the link below a proposed revision of RFC 7302. This
> >> revision adds support for confidential resolution of EIDR Identifiers
> >> using HTTP over TLS -- addressing a known limitation of RFC 7302.
> >>
> >> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-pal-eidr-urn-2016-00.txt
> >>
> >> Very much looking forward to your comments and feedback. Let me know
> >> if you need additional information.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> -- Pierre [on behalf of MovieLabs (http://movielabs.com)]
> >>
> >
>