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

Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com> Tue, 23 December 2014 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <dev+ietf@seantek.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 E12F61AC39A; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:16:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 UPltu0QkbOMm; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:16:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3816C1A1ACE; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:13:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.123.7] (unknown [23.241.1.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1724B22E260; Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:13:30 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <5499BED1.104@seantek.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 11:13:21 -0800
From: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list
References: <5499BA48.5060807@andyet.net>
In-Reply-To: <5499BA48.5060807@andyet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/qV323BHpiYx_gs9fFtZXUVxqRoY
Cc: urn-nid@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: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 19:16:47 -0000

Maybe.

But there are two distinct controversies: 1) whether a proposed NID 
follows the URN rules sufficiently to permit registration, and 2) what 
the URN rules should be. It is very difficult for people who are trying 
to get work done under 1), to get sucked into debates about 2).

My latest proposal for xmlns and rdf URN NIDs 
(draft-seantek-xmlns-rdf-urns-00.txt) is an example of that. For those 
who want to resolve the f-component stuff with a practical example, 
please take a look. Thanks!

Sean

On 12/23/2014 10:54 AM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
> RFC 3406 specified use of the urn-nid@ietf.org list for discussion 
> about namespace registrations, and 2141bis has not yet changed that. 
> In the interest of economy, I would suggest using the urn@ietf.org 
> list for all future discussions and deprecating the urn-nid@ietf.org 
> list.
>
> Peter
>