Re: [urn] Summary of WG decisions Re: Feedback on draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif-03

[Andrew Newton <[e-mail]>]

Let me address a couple of points with one message:

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Sean Leonard <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 5/17/2016 9:10 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> So, once again, if we say "updates: 3986" we need to be able to explain
>> *precisely* which parts of RFC 3986 are affected (and why, fwiw).

Just for my sanity, I reread
draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif-03.txt. It seems to me that this
draft does exactly the thing you have requested.

If you have found an issue with this draft in the context of updating
3986 (or any other issue), can you please start a separate thread so
we may address the issue?

> Two examples:
> (1) I recall specifically that this WG decided that URN syntax shall conform
> to RFC 3986 URI syntax. (I cannot find a specific e-mail reference for it.)
> That much I can work with. There is material disagreement about whether, and
> to what extent, URN "semantics" either need to--or must not--conform to RFC
> 3986 URI "semantics". I have searched and can find no record of decision on
> this point. A lot of recent objections / elliptical decisions on things like
> "what is a resource?" and so on, have been fueled because people are
> throwing up arguments about what has been decided, when the semantics issue
> has (apparently) not been decided.

Again, see the draft mentioned above. And note that it is a working
group document.


> (I do recall specifically that a chair or AD stepped in a couple of years
> back and declared updates to RFC 3986 to be out of scope of this WG. I
> cannot find the reference.)

I think it was stated at one of our few wg meetings. But to clarify,
we are not re-writing 3986 and tackling that entire URI space. That is
very out-of-scope.

-andy