Re: [urn] A way forward for rfc2141bis and rfc3406bis -- comments to general issues

Peter Saint-Andre <> Wed, 18 July 2012 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9334F11E81D5 for <>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.569
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Git14qMhB9R for <>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCDEE11E81C9 for <>; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 68D384005A; Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:49:03 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:29:57 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Juha Hakala <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [urn] A way forward for rfc2141bis and rfc3406bis -- comments to general issues
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: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 22:29:08 -0000

On 7/6/12 3:18 AM, Juha Hakala wrote:
> Hello,
> Alfred has brought up several important issues in this message. I'll not
> respond to everything at once, but will discuss the general points, the
> way forward and the proposal separately.
> This message concentrates on the general issues.
> On 5.7.2012 12:26, Alfred wrote:
>> URN folks,
>> thanks to all for reviving the discussion on the rfx2141bis and
>> rfc3406bis I-Ds.  As the editor of both drafts, I try to sum up
>> below and provide a perspective for a way forward; I'll respond
>> individually in more detail ASAP (see endnote).
>> ** general **
>> Unfortunately, stakeholders of URN Namespaces for various reasons
>> seem to feel discouraged to participate in the on-list discussion,
>> which now has been majorized by few long-time "IETF professional"
>> contributors.  Part of the frustration I observe also seems to be
>> based on the lack of constructive proposals on the list so far,
>> as replacement solutions for the options being voted against.
> There are not that many librarians, publishers etc. who are involved
> with standards work. And most of these standards activists concentrate
> on developing ISO standards. IETF as a whole, and the way in which it
> develops standards, is unfamiliar to book trade and libraries. So even
> if the URN system is vitally important for those organisations who use
> it, we have only a limited number of mainly technical people following
> the URNbis process.

Hi Juha, what I have observed is that the scope of our work in the
URNBIS WG is actually quite small, and the topics are of interest to
people who care about URIs, but not to librarians, publishers, and the
like. Those folks are users of some URN namespaces, but they don't
particularly care about URNs in general (nor should they, I think).


Peter Saint-Andre