IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [urn] Section 3.2: NSS

John C Klensin <john@jck.com> Fri, 04 September 2015 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jck.com>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39D511B4504 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 11:08:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 vGQPPOhqvyrd for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 11:08:22 -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 BFE161A90BC for <urn@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 11:08:05 -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@jck.com>) id 1ZXvP8-000EKN-6K; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:08:02 -0400
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:07:57 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <7F7E6E1E49855C2258EF6848@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <55E9D7B3.6030206@network-heretics.com>
References: <559463C3.3030905@network-heretics.com> <55E8DD7E.1020309@andyet.net> <55E905DC.1080209@andyet.net> <55E9D7B3.6030206@network-heretics.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@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/DhCXHYYdGMmwuj3QKUYS90nKY9k>
Cc: urn@ietf.org, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
Subject: Re: [urn] Section 3.2: NSS
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 18:08:23 -0000


--On Friday, September 04, 2015 13:41 -0400 Keith Moore
<moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:

> (Some URN namespaces
>>    create names that exist only as URNs, whereas others
>>    create URNs out of names that already exist in other
>>    identifier systems, such as ISBNs [RFC3187] and ISSNs
>>    [RFC3044].)
> 
> Looks good.   (I assume those are informative references?   I
> have heard that they're likely to be updated soon and would
> hate for those updates to delay adoption of 2141bis.)

They certainly look like informative references to me.  More to
the point, draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition, also in the WG's
queue, discusses the fate of those documents and their
relationship to the URNBIS effort.   If you think it would be
helpful, we couple presumably incorporate a reference to it in
2141bis.  While it seems obvious that we need to get 2141bis
locked down before giving significant attention to the other two
pending specs (draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif being the
other one), I cannot imagine a scenario in which we did not try
to progress all three together.

    john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email