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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sun, 11 January 2015 13:50 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 DB2071A3BA6; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 05:50:46 -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 7a7yBb7fwgDY; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 05:50:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x233.google.com (mail-la0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B13491A3BA7; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 05:50:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ms9so20603238lab.10; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 05:50:43 -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=dFDCQklvkmEjKfzPiaxWTagElDyJJ21ETErbF1Vnkuc=; b=Ra0da+EAVCkRf2ZU4YkNjdWqq/vkNr0hNgmOv0ZY0XDtJKiDWHKMGh6e4ku+beVplt H/eTG4jbYaAVMcn9Zd1dGCJZUK+3Z0iH5dfNAd5NY/BgxcsY+rBP9mxninwO8I8V3tN/ SON6YqJas9lNGnJ9VxFHBNy8Yj6pR8ZekT7IgfhYsnsxBin7q+5lNOoIpqZXNjWBNB5e Jhe/tqFZVtk5tW0kSDyjMAtzG6n84dtYfa1ISimPXqitYaxRcpmDKiLeZfskEeVQl8MD +x0cLKHs82XeThBNpvwa9Xq/KPd3gteoZ5RVlCQzmN+4LL80bOqQcSioeIe4B+dlT5Xb LDXw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.206.108 with SMTP id ln12mr31592514lac.3.1420984242969; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 05:50:42 -0800 (PST)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.127.168 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Jan 2015 05:50:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54B2279C.2020203@seantek.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> <54B2279C.2020203@seantek.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 21:50:42 +0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: a3tBiDKPa15kpRuQt_VpX2wmidk
Message-ID: <CALaySJJObM8v+rN=LMvy1gdvRCPQqND7QLw74p4WVB9DxFn+zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/fAxvobaPiUYq-Ql8siyByzil1vQ>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, "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: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 13:50:47 -0000

> I completely disagree with, and would like to point out the contradiction in
> terms, about: "I think we should celebrate...rapid progress...*by blocking
> all pending and future [work]...*"
...
> Thus, the proposal "not [to] start not start processing on any other URN
> namespace requests until [the URNBIS] WG has finished the update" is both
> unfair to participants and technically unsound.

Sean, I understand what you're saying, and I share some of your
concern here, which is why, in my "closing the loop" message, I said
that I'm watching the time and will re-evaluate if we remain stalled.
But I also understand the concern about (1) registering more and more
URN namespaces without taking into account the changes that are in the
works and (2) registering more and more URN namespaces without getting
input from the registrants about whether the changes that are in the
works suit their needs.

I'm therefore willing to delay those requests for a reasonable time in
order to try to get that input and have the changes taken into
account.  Let's see how things go over the next couple of months, and
then figure out where we are.

Barry

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> wrote:
> I am catching up on e-mail and, other than my parenthetical note about a
> couple of drafts, was unable to respond to this thread until now.
>
> On 12/29/2014 12:37 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So I think we should put "urn@ietf.org" into the draft as the
>>>> address for review/discussions of namespace proposals[...]
>>>> 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.
>
> and:
>>
>> and that authors or proponents of
>>
>> [drafts]
>>
>> 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 completely disagree with, and would like to point out the contradiction in
> terms, about: "I think we should celebrate...rapid progress...*by blocking
> all pending and future [work]...*"
>
> With all due respect to the technical acumen of the URNBIS participants,
> that WG has been around for a couple of years already and has failed to
> produce thus far. There has been change of personnel, directional problems,
> etc. Moreover, the group did not meet at IETF 91.
>
> Meanwhile there are a number of URN NID proposals that have languished or
> have been blocked for seemingly obscure technical reasons, or because people
> are evaluating the proposals based on shifting sands (i.e., URNBIS drafts)
> rather than objective, consensus-based criteria (RFC 2141, RFC 3406, etc.).
>
> People are debating about angels on the head of a pin, while implementers,
> in good faith, are trying hard to build applications and deliver them to
> market that make use of this technology area.
>
> If proposed NIDs don't match opinions in the URNBIS work, maybe that should
> be a clue that (shifting) concepts around URNs is not delivering the value
> that folks need to get out of this work. Practice should inform the theory.
> And, in particular, drafts initiated up to now (really, up until URNBIS
> finishes producing) should not be held up.
>
> Thus, the proposal "not [to] start not start processing on any other URN
> namespace requests until [the URNBIS] WG has finished the update" is both
> unfair to participants and technically unsound.
>
> (Under the current rules, new formal URN namespace registrations require
> IETF Consensus. Therefore if any particular proposed NID conflicts with the
> clear direction of the URNBIS work, a sufficiently small faction of
> motivated URNBIS participants can block it anyway. That alone should get
> proposed namespace authors and URNBIS participants to play nice, without
> making one camp beholden to the other.)
>
> Thank you,
>
> Sean
>