Re: [urn] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-2141bis-00

Alfred Hönes <> Sun, 14 October 2012 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 917B621F8452 for <>; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_TOWRITE=1.05, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BSIPzrowcUqk for <>; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F3E21F84D5 for <>; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: $/16.3.2) id AA027763919; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:58:39 +0200
Received: (from ah@localhost) by (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id SAA14825; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:58:37 +0200 (MESZ)
From: Alfred Hönes <>
Message-Id: <>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:58:37 +0200
In-Reply-To: <> from Peter Saint-Andre at Oct "13, " 2012 "07:46:43" pm
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="hp-roman8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [urn] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-2141bis-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 17:00:52 -0000

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> Folks, I must say I'm frustrated by the lack of progress in this
> working group because I think it's important to move URNs along on the
> standards track. I was going to provide detailed feedback on
> draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn, but that too was frustrating because
> I disagree with so many of the authorial decisions made in producing
> that specification. Therefore I have decided to write an alternative
> specification of 2141bis that I hope can serve as a starting point for
> renewed discussion within the WG. Your feedback is welcome.
> Peter

Peter (and all),
the situation of the WG has been discussed between our AD and the
WG co-chairs, with background exchanges with WG document (co-)authors,
during the past couple of weeks, just leading to an update to the WG
milestones, but unfortunately contributing to further delay to the
document work I'm occupied with.

Updates to all WG documents are in progress and should be out very
soon now.  Dealing with your counter-proposal at this stage would
further delay the finalizing of the rfc2141bis and rfc3406bis I-D
revisions I'm working on, with a likely negative impact on meeting
the revised first milestone; so please admit that I personally will
defer dealing with your I-D until the in-progress revised WG
documents are out.

Best regards,