[urn] draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif-04
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 08 June 2016 13:28 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 584E812D1C1 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 06:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] 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 ePBCQ4WCXBCF for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 06:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63F9012B03D for <urn@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 06:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1bAdX5-0005k8-CY for urn@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:28:31 -0400
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:28:26 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: urn@ietf.org
Message-ID: <E26041E01CF979EE357E1039@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/6ukDygjAgot2hrBsZn60CRZVVUU>
Subject: [urn] draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif-04
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: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 13:28:34 -0000
Hi. Well, as I feared, last week disappeared and it has taken me until now to get this ready. Barry knows some of the rest of what has gotten in the way, but it isn't important. The new draft should be posted very soon. This draft is an attempt to explore what the WG really wants. When "URNs are not URIs" was written, and then transformed into this document, my sense of the WG's preference was to keep it short, high-level, and to the point. From that perspective, I probably removed too little material in the transformation rather than two much. Recent comments, especially from Julian and Sean, and with no one speaking in opposition, suggest that it needs to be far more specific and explicit about justification, relationships to 3986 and other documents, and exactly what it does or does not do. I think this version does that. It describes the disagreements about how to read 3986 and this document in terms of bypassing those disagreements rather than resolving them, is a lot more explicit about what "updates 3986" means (although I think that really was covered in Section 4 of -03), and so on. It also mentions the perceived problem that 3986 has a perspective (and maybe some specific requirements) that are inconsistent with 2141/3406, an issue that was discussed at some length a few years ago. In reading the I-D, please note that I've inserted a note to the RFC Editor below the Abstract (after this version, I will turn it into a comment to them in the XML, but the WG should see it now and understand its request to not nit-pick tense). I've also inserted a number of "CREF" comments that are intended to call WG attention to particular issues or choices and solicit input. A few artifacts of "URNs are not URIs" have been removed or rewritten but, in reading this spec, the WG needs to understand that the earlier approach and this "syntax only" one are different approaches to address the same issue (even though the problem itself can be characterized in multiple ways, something I hope the I-D now makes clear). The earlier one is easier to understand and write about, but many people believe it had adverse consequences, particularly for generic URI parsers and processors. The current one tries to made a much more subtle distinction, one that is complicated by there not being a clear dichotomy between syntax and semantics in 3986 (at least a distinction that is apparently not clear to many people). However, I'm fairly unhappy with the result (one reason this wasn't posted Sunday is that I was even more unhappy with what I had then). It feels very tedious to me, spending a lot of words and space repeating the same things in different words. I've left one section and a few paragraphs that were less redundant but it don't seem to be necessary for this draft. I've proposed just dropping some of those and have asked questions about others. It seems to me that the WG now has a choice among (at least): (i) Deciding that this reflects what was want and is approximately good enough, plus or minus editorial work and cleaning out the CREF comments and maybe some sections or paragraphs. (ii) Deciding that this generally reflects what we want but needs extensive and/or substantive additional work. (iii) Deciding that the document has now served its purpose and should be dropped entirely, replaced by inserting a variation on the third and fourth paragraphs of the Introduction and as little of Section 4 as possible into 2141bis. One of the things that is _not_ on the above list is revisiting the "syntax only" decision. I think the WG Chairs have rather clearly closed that question and the purpose of this I-D (or text in 2141bis to replace it under (iii) above) is just to implement that decision. Personal comment: I note that both (ii) and (iii) above are likely to require significant energy and, unless something changes with how the WG works, calendar time to settle on text and reach consensus. I therefore see those options as tradeoffs against "getting done" and the risk of the WG running completely out of steam before we can produce documents for IETF Last Call. I also think that available time (or the WG, its leadership, document authors, etc.) is much better spent getting the technical and editorial details of 2141bis right rather than striving for generally perfection or fussing with a transitional/ explanatory documents like this one and draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition. YMMD, but I think it will help if people are explicit about our priorities. Finally, it would be really helpful to making progress, and to me personally, if people would read and comment on this quickly, before everyone (including myself) loses track of what is in it and why or of the list discussions that led to the changes in it. best, john
- [urn] draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif-04 John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif-04 John C Klensin