IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [urn] Different conceptual model compared to earlier specifications

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Thu, 22 December 2016 20:29 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C004D12953D for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:29:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 xutpYvkGa3hN for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:29:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 001A2126D74 for <urn@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:29:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local (unknown [76.25.4.24]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 102A5400E0; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:31:26 -0700 (MST)
To: "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>, "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
References: <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EF010D2AA542@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE>
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Message-ID: <49b9bc6e-d31a-b490-ee81-348cdb3a5947@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:29:04 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EF010D2AA542@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/6-2M3686EbpsK3u0tIiWpq_A41o>
Subject: Re: [urn] Different conceptual model compared to earlier specifications
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/urn/>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:29:06 -0000

On 12/21/16 4:40 AM, Svensson, Lars wrote:
> All,
>
> in draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-18 the final paragraph of section 1 reads:
>
> [[
> Summaries of changes from RFC 2141 and RFC 3406 appear in Appendix B and Appendix C respectively. This document obsoletes both [RFC2141] and [RFC3406]. While it does not explicitly update or replace [RFC1737] or [RFC2271], the reader who references those documents should be aware that the conceptual model of URNs in this document is slightly different from those older specifications.
> ]]
>
> This last reference to a "conceptual model [that is] slightly different" leaves the reader hanging in mid-air as to the nature of those changes. I think it would be helpful to supply at least one example of such a difference.

I think I'll leave that for John. :-)

Peter

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email