Re: [urn] draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-19

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

The chairs believe that this version reflects what was decided during
the (now-long-ago) conference call plus the list discussion since
then, and that the document is now done.  There may, of course, be
some "oopsies" that have crept in with the changes, so we will make a
call for final comments.  Let's call it a "working group last call for
typos and major objections."  We do not expect to see quibbles that
have been discussed before, re-thinking of things that does not
reflect a serious error in where we went with it, or other things of
that sort.

And, so, thus begins a last call of that nature, a last call for major
objections and eyes looking for errors that have crept in.  That call
will run until... oh, let's make it easy and say 31 January.
Everyone, please do have one last look.  There will be an IETF last
call, of course, but let's please not have working group participants
waiting until then.

Barry, chair

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 12:31 AM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Ok, draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-19 has been posted.  It
> incorporates the changes to the definition and use of "lcoator"
> discussed on this list over the last 48 hours as well as a
> number of editorial changes to improve clarity and readability.
> For example, there are now several more explicit inter-sectional
> cross-reference and some redundant text has been eliminate.  In
> some case, the revisions make the text a bit more tedious, but
> we have concluded that a bit of tediousness is preferable to
> user confusion.
>
> There has also been a small change in tone wrt 3986.   The
> existence of conceptual, and sometimes confusing, differences
> between 3986 -- a URL document with some URN aspects and
> inclusions [1] -- and 2141bis have been called out explicit.
> There are two reasons for this, neither of which is an attack on
> 3986:  (i) to reduce opportunities for endless discussions about
> apparent, but small, differences in terminology between this
> specification and 3986, as discussed on this list over the last
> couple of weekss; (ii) to try to protect the URN definition
> against the apparent likelihood that, whether the decision is
> made in the marketplace or other SDOs, we seem to be in danger
> of ending up with at least three different, even if mostly
> consistent, specifications of URIs or subsets of them: 3986, the
> WHATWG URL definition effort, and statements in various W3C
> specs (notably related to HTML).
>
> It is possible that a similar comment should be made about the
> relationship between this document, its terminology, and other
> specifications (whether internal or external to the IETF).   If
> that is true, please send references and recommended text to the
> list.
>
> For Section 4.3(2), Henry suggested slightly different text; I
> (and Peter) believe what is now present does the job and fits
> better with the surrounding sections.  Anyone who believes
> otherwise and thinks the debate is wroth reopening should say so.
>
> Peter and I believe this draft is suitable for WGLC and that it
> would be appropriate for the co-Chairs and WG to take a
> "showstoppers and major issues only" position relative to
> further comments.  We (and, as I understand it, Barry and
> alexey) would really like to get this tied up before the Chicago
> IETF.  The only way I can see to accomplish that is to stop
> nit-picking about, e.g., minor issues of terminology.
>
> best,
>     john
>
>
>
>
> [1] See the 2141bis text for details and references..
>
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn