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

Barry Leiba <> Fri, 03 July 2015 16:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344E61B3078 for <>; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 09:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.621
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.621 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, 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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NNZzRGRVA0Is for <>; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 09:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c0f::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C79731B305B for <>; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 09:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vnbg7 with SMTP id g7so16488768vnb.12 for <>; Fri, 03 Jul 2015 09:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Js8OUqjJp6FdtcYYqYVNWB3bI1sQ69nAaayauTRfLH0=; b=fCKwhyRUEqRYRttLwPaz4H4hJi84zXlJRJVP5W7zQEb/TNLxygJczMZHYCHyD5yspW Eub6uifTj6hTRpVo4yoBxzL2k7euAzXnlDPLZwIguoxx0FnA+K7y7NKglTyyCjxKEij/ jiyamYUZmCXS9acEJCp65SYUIiGljxY9QsJkPGDQOLBu+BeiAaNt6X6MyR8lKrYSrXn7 uvyYqsFoXkblQr1LYKmuZvFpEJ5gsqYwJIZYM9Ictxj6O/pnfnklG6/rDEim49mHtbRw 91FQCR0q5ZGlAF/9TzDlgaaxdG3ZPRTrKogTNfBfvAzNFhoID1RXdO/bLH1PTeMCn+uB FsIA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id jx2mr37064689vdb.80.1435939774611; Fri, 03 Jul 2015 09:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 09:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 09:09:34 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: EBW8Yd-JG-7wZc5fssDk0lugAoQ
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Publication request for draft-spinosa-urn-lex
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Enrico Francesconi <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Andrew Newton <>, Pierluigi Spinosa <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussion of new namespace identifiers for URNs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 16:09:37 -0000

>    after some months we are back since we did not receive any feedback
> after our email (dated March 19th, here below) which replied to your
> remarks.
> Is there any follow up on the analysis of the URN:LEX specifications?

Yes, sorry; I thought I had replied, and I see that I hadn't.

As I had told you, I'll agree to get further review on the document
and will process it.  But by March, when you last sent your response,
the "urnbis" working group in the IETF was in the process of revising
the rules for registering URN namespaces -- making the registration
process more lightweight, actually, which could make it easier for us
to finally put this to rest and register "lex" for you.  The wrinkle
was that the working group is in the middle of working on the document
that revises the rules, and asked me to hold off on any further URN
namespace requests (there are others waiting besides yours as well)
until they finish the document update.

I had anticipated that they'd finish by July (so now is a perfect time
for you to remind me), and they have not finished yet.  I'll discuss
this with the working group and will let you know where we stand.