Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list
Juha Hakala <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi> Mon, 12 January 2015 10:22 UTC
Return-Path: <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>
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 835391A8AAB; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:22:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 7wC47bn30Hvi; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:22:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-rs1-vallila2.fe.helsinki.fi (smtp-rs1-vallila2.fe.helsinki.fi [128.214.173.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F1FA1A8AA3; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 02:22:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [128.214.71.180] (lh2-kkl1206.lib.helsinki.fi [128.214.71.180]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp-rs1.it.helsinki.fi (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t0CAMJHL013959 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:22:19 +0200
Message-ID: <54B3A05B.1030809@helsinki.fi>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:22:19 +0200
From: Juha Hakala <juha.hakala@helsinki.fi>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Subject: Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list
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> <1D6DD11066A060EED966B640@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <CAC4RtVAAw7VHg-XqFaDYgPi_OOzScRMAXx6XEwqHh+WFJ6YfEQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVAAw7VHg-XqFaDYgPi_OOzScRMAXx6XEwqHh+WFJ6YfEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/qZk95Awi0_nZVOaKXBEgS6r55Ps>
Cc: Helmi-Kanerva Tuori <helmi-kanerva.tuori@helsinki.fi>, urn-nid@ietf.org, "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>, Esa-Pekka Keskitalo <esa-pekka.keskitalo@helsinki.fi>
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, 12 Jan 2015 10:22:39 -0000
Hello, On 9.1.2015 5:50, Barry Leiba wrote: > > 1. The IESG has just given approval for draft-higgs-hbbtv-urn, and as > soon as he posts a new version I'm going to let it go out. That > covers the in-process ones. > > 2. I will not start processing on any other URN namespace requests > until this WG has finished the update. This should apply to the revision of existing namespaces - such as ISBN and NBN - as well. But once the URN syntax has been updated, I'll provide new versions of namespace registration requests for these identifiers. These identifiers will support f- and q-components. But specifying which resolution services will (initially) be supported would not be really useful, since any list would become outdated fairly soon. And resolvers may support only a subset of potential services (or some informal services which are not yet widely known). > > 3. I'll watch the time-frame on that, and reserve the right to > reconsider at some point. > > Fair? Depends on how long it will be necessary to wait. The National Library of Finland wishes to register a URN namespace for International Standard Collection Identifier (ISCI), but we can wait a few weeks / months. Best regards, Juha > > Barry > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:28 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote: >> >> --On Monday, December 29, 2014 15:37 -0500 Barry Leiba >> <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote: >> >>>>> 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. >> Some observations below, but I'm going to defer to you on this >> because I just don't have time or energy to both have a long >> discussion and to make progress on the URNBIS WG documents. >> >>> 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 was actually thinking about the issue the other way around. >> It has long been my experience that anyone who is active in the >> IETF, knows where to find things or who to ask, and have lots of >> time on their hands can find or follow just about anything that >> amuses them. There have historically been exceptions, but they >> are few and becoming fewer. However, one of several issues >> with URNBIS is that people are coming into the discussions with >> the perspective of one particular set of needs and advocating >> for them on the implicit assumption that, if those needs are >> accommodated, everything else will be taken care of [1]. >> >> The result is that we aren't getting a sufficient number of >> perspectives and that increases the risks that we will get >> something seriously wrong by omitting consideration of an >> important case. So my thinking was to create a situation in >> which someone proposing a new URN namespace and NID was more or >> less forced, as a condition for getting that NID, to follow and >> participate in the WG, primarily wrt two questions: >> >> (i) Would any of the changes being proposed either hurt >> or help setting up their namespace, and any others >> similar to it that they can think about, be defined in a >> way that is clear, reasonable, and natural? >> >> (ii) Are there additional changes that should or should >> not be made that would be significant from their >> perspective? >> >> Now, one could figure out other ways to ask those questions than >> having them emerge in a dialog with the WG, and try to assure >> that we got answers, then forcing applicants onto the on the URN >> mailing list and holding the applications until the WG signed >> off. But, right now, it appears to me that we are not, and have >> not been, getting those answers from the perspective of any >> recent applicants other than Sean, and he hasn't been involved >> for very long. >> >>>> 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. >> See above. >> >>> ... >>>> 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. >> I actually commented, at some length, on the GSMA/IMEI >> namespace(s) (now RFC 7254 and 7255). Those comments went >> nowhere, including no useful responses from the authors or GSMA. >> I considered making a fuss during the last round of IETF Last >> Call (and, if necessary, on appeal) and concluded that >> >> (i) I'm reluctant to tell another standards body what >> they need, even though I'd be a lot happier if there was >> some sort of roadmap rather than "this request now and >> maybe there will be others later"; >> (ii) I don't see a particular example, in its own >> namespace and with its own NID, as being especially >> harmful -- especially since nothing says "you get to use >> this as a precedent" -- even if there were serious >> problems with it; >> (iii) URNBIS wasn't nearly far enough along for us to >> have a serious discussion about one GSMA namespace and >> qualifiers of various sorts (?-components ?) that would >> identify different uses of that namespace. I do note >> that, AFAIK, the situation with GSMA is rather different >> from that with ISO/TC 46. In the latter case, there are >> separate registration authorities and oversight >> arrangements for, e.g., ISSN and ISBN. If the >> registrations arrived, de novo, under the procedures >> outlined in 2141bis (and the former 3406bis), they would >> almost certainly arrive from different applicants. >> GSMA, again AFAIK, is a little more monolithic, so it >> would be reasonable to press for "one organization, one >> broad set of topics, one namespace" or at least for an >> explanation of why that was not appropriate; >> (iv) I just don't have time to both fight individual >> URN namespace battles (unless they are obviously >> critical-path), try to drag i18n work along, and pay >> attention to anything else IETF-related. >> >> >>> ... >>> 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. >> Again, see the discussion of motivation above. >> >>> 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). >> In the interest of future discussion and to keep this note from >> getting longer, I'll reply separately on that subject. >> >> Again, I'll defer to your decision about not combining the two >> lists now, but note that, IMO, the continued separation is >> weakening the work of this WG and increasing the risk of bad >> results. >> >> best, >> john >> >> >> [1] There are more negative versions of that story, including >> "as long as my needs are met, I don't care about anything else", >> but such hypotheses are unnecessary to my point. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> urn mailing list >> urn@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn > _______________________________________________ > urn mailing list > urn@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn -- Juha Hakala Senior advisor The National Library of Finland Library Network Services P.O.Box 26 (Teollisuuskatu 23) FIN-00014 Helsinki University Tel. +358 9 191 44293 Mobile +358 50 3827678
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Sean Leonard
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Barry Leiba
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Sean Leonard
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list John C Klensin
- A few quick thoughts on "lex" (was" Re: [urn] con… John C Klensin
- Re: A few quick thoughts on "lex" (was" Re: [urn]… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Barry Leiba
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Sean Leonard
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Barry Leiba
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Sean Leonard
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] continued use of urn-nid@ietf.org list Barry Leiba