Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 29 December 2014 20:37 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 6B83A1A8F3B; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:37:18 -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 uV_nTrFNVvVm; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:37:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x234.google.com (mail-lb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C74D51A8F38; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:37:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id l4so11286577lbv.39; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:37:15 -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=o3FP6csxJE6CwV8ellxVYwDYGr8aHRVj4C3qOAIEyYQ=; b=pNotcjwTAcoTY+Kw0AuVmyp3qRGmKrf2jzgyINIH047VQVMuY+1acfFuf0TezF8O48 aAGpFLu2GZGAaDXTH6lDzKYCG+SOfqRrYAs5aeASBqg9zW3gXnp1q8YzhH0ZE7QQdv3+ Sz9zMhun5UNPzcb9eZe+Xej1EVsxiuy5gqwTp1/NUhpUpnEBo4wpO4zxb82U/CX7GH86 e/ZDk5EF1zF/+ybiaXfh8v/ehqLDqGPMCwaTL+G3R9xn6YnpgaHEznmusm3HgKfuDJZQ QVzmsbodSA8246fNHCmuuv2+zL5+6u9fMccouPP8WY3I76y1Jp7ZcaVUFY/Au/BvdPOw 067Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.87.142 with SMTP id ay14mr58834398lab.45.1419885435210; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:37:15 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.127.168 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:37:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <844A0581B9447C7703322432@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>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:37:15 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: GltaEqan8JBQVOSfiWhJFkywcYU
Message-ID: <CALaySJJU1XdwrOyTdJ4nobrW8=piQ40Z0=Ay-5KvJY9-iGTEYQ@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=ISO-8859-1
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/QrKpRSz00R3Z1JbiSrEwEqjWVnM
Cc: "urn-nid@ietf.org" <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: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:37:18 -0000

>> 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.

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 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.

> What is done is done and I think it would be ill-advised to
> reopen the reviews on any namespace already approved and either
> registered or in some phase of the post-approval publication
> process

Thank you for being sensible about that.

> 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.

> and that authors or proponents of
>
> draft-atarius-dispatch-meid-urn
> draft-atarius-dispatch-meid-urn-as-instanceid
> draft-benjemaa-vbs-urn
> draft-seantek-certspec-04
> draft-seantek-rdf-urn-00
> draft-seantek-xmlns-urn-00
> draft-snell-social-urn-01
> draft-spinosa-urn-lex-09
>
> should be notified that their drafts [1] are going to be
> referred to the WG for formal review when IETF Consensus
> approval is formally requested.

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.

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).

Barry, Applications AD