Re: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 01 October 2014 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 68C3E1ACE7F for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 09:03:56 -0700 (PDT)
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 zIJj0wHgWVHl for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 09:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22e.google.com (mail-la0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010: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 331D01ACE73 for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 09:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f46.google.com with SMTP id gi9so686349lab.5 for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
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=/+S8Dv21LaoqnCYG9cLOMgWCW2asfLwCm382P5ZDCZM=; b=KRNMmE9Cp79mCTZK8iUXqkvE6V2TRoupjjUMRgarhpi236KMioWqFnKxQLBPTz48jZ odRJY7mHUpCmvo1wpjnxR581vNtoVwml1c2ljwlNufC7cQ64NM/0JjM8JmaE/XFMncEy Cy90qyA4/YNWFEaVYOenlz1RbLVyug8RTb8H8oG3gYdOylL4qQhMhgY9EjN/PYnOE92g kGvCSYRNBGxsORirKgWiu0fwh8kqn8PYfnaNxs6qPvjbejQuEhOIydrlnAIl6BuTEMDv hA2JhuaCIUBX9kNBhR9NJa5J92TpUTNGHCyuIfxekOASL4FN1KONotQVjKLnVDc3N+Ed yM8w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.158.227 with SMTP id wx3mr5039582lbb.1.1412179433180; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.1.193 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 09:03:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D9DAD3B7-4CE1-48A0-B604-5682703483CE@ittig.cnr.it>
References: <CALaySJJk5YiCQZqt6WoWkqfAzi2A04HEAH=vG0pVAy8e45N5aQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJLiqXBrP_6yCCzTjK9hWaNooLJM5H0w_MVpAmmKjCEBOg@mail.gmail.com> <59A490C9-38AA-4E35-AD70-00D555EE9ED8@ittig.cnr.it> <9F77E7FD-4305-49FE-80A6-30E85F633148@ittig.cnr.it> <D9DAD3B7-4CE1-48A0-B604-5682703483CE@ittig.cnr.it>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 17:03:53 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: jwuJmDsi4WLbaKG0sYbjEvlziIY
Message-ID: <CALaySJLwDJLvsuQ1G2_BgS8bwDqXbwLO7ZmGUZgF46KkV9SDcA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Enrico Francesconi <francesconi@ittig.cnr.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/Iw3Y91x_P4PfGvoPfLnyKCNdgwE
Cc: urn-nid@ietf.org, Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>, Pierluigi Spinosa <pierluigi.spinosa@ittig.cnr.it>
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: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 16:03:56 -0000

>    after our replies (on July 4th, see below) to Barry's remarks on
> the current version (v.09) of urn-lex specifications, we are back to
> ask you if there are any news.

Aiiieeeeeeee!  I'm so sorry that this got lost in my mess.  I'm embarrassed.

> Meanwhile, we have produced a new version (v.10) of the urn-lex
> specifications (in attachment) including most of Barry's suggestions,
> as revised in our last reply.

I will have a look at that version today, and will reply today or tomorrow.

> We would like to include acknowledgments to all of you having
> collaborated in commenting and improving the draft, but we
> actually do not know if this is usual in case of IETF members.

This is entirely up to you.  It is customary for authors to "ack"
those who they feel have provided important contributions, and that is
the authors' judgment.  Speaking for myself, I can assure you that I'm
happy either way, and will certainly take no offense, whatever you
decide.

Barry