Re: [urn] WG progress

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 17 October 2011 14:59 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 D993D21F8B0D for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id szK0UsDKDkTr for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BC1321F8BBB for <urn@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 07:59:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-193.cisco.com (unknown [64.101.72.193]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0EBAF41E49 for <urn@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:04:14 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4E9C42CA.8080203@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:59:22 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
References: <4E89F38F.6060605@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4E89F38F.6060605@stpeter.im>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [urn] WG progress
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about possible revisions to the definition of Uniform Resource Names <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:59:26 -0000

Again, please note that the submission deadline before IETF 82 is two
weeks from today:

http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2011.html#IETF82

(I will reply separately to Juha's post about namespace registration.)

Peter

On 10/3/11 11:40 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> <hat type='AD'/>
> 
> The following documents are currently expired (and indeed were last
> updated in 2010):
> 
> * draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn
> * draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn
> * draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn
> * draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg
> 
> The URNBIS WG had milestones to issue Working Group Last Calls on those
> documents in February of 2011 and deliver them to the IESG in April.
> 
> The WG is now seriously behind schedule. Although there has been a bit
> of discussion on the mailing list, the results of those discussions have
> not been incorporated into updated Internet-Drafts. Furthermore, the WG
> did not meet at IETF 81 and does not plan to meet at IETF 82.
> 
> If the WG does not make visible progress before IETF 82 (which I would
> measure by, at least, updated versions of the chartered I-Ds), as the
> responsible AD I will need to consider taking more drastic measures to
> generate a successful outcome, or consider closing the WG.
> 
> Document authors, please note that the final submission cut-off before
> IETF 82 is October 31, so you have 4 weeks to make some progress...
> 
> Peter
>