Re: [urn] IANA repository ... draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-reg-02

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 3/25/12 11:16 PM, Alfred � wrote:
> Leslie,
> thanks again for your feedback; see my remarks inline below.
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is this point in the document:
> 
> Note to other readers:  This is in Section 6, IANA Considerations.
> 
>>>   [[ NOTE: It would be preferable to restore the generic, most
>>>    universally supported (HTML) form of the registry be identified by an
>>>    implementation-neutral URL, as previously supported by IANA:
>>>    <http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces>.  Yet, currently
>>>    this URI and similar forms all resolve to an XML version.
>>>    The content there should link to alternate forms (.xml, .txt), and
>>>    those alternate versions should indicate the *other* versions; i.e.,
>>>    where the .txt version (currently only available at ftp.IANA.ORG)
>>>    also says, "This registry is also available in XML and plain text
>>>    formats.", it should better say: "This registry is also available in
>>>    HTML and XML formats."  Similarly, the XML form should point to the
>>>    HTML and plain text forms. ]]
>>
>> actually a question for the URN document, or rather something for the
>> IESG/IAB to explain or take up with IANA?  I.e., it seems to me that
>> this is a broader question of references to IANA registries, and not
>> just *this* reference to *an* IANA registry?
>>
>> Leslie.
> 
> 
> this Note is more or less the result of some frustration over
> - first having useful conversation with IANA and seeing things (of
>   admittedly more general impact) improved -- at least for the
>   URN Namespace IANA registry,
> - but several months later finding the improvements have been lost
>   again.

Venting your frustration in the IANA considerations of an I-D about URNs
is not the right approach.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/