Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03

SM <sm@resistor.net> Tue, 16 October 2012 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 5A66B21F8966 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:31:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.586
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EM2IjbM9P+qY for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F5B921F88FA for <urn@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9GJVPfG002877; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1350415892; bh=OMnFpDOsc853SoOGp/CnqAgHcajqkgC8hjDzQ1ANWHg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=MdYxwzg2DGNSAHWAHYLXIeGcnR6CL0TNv6bYX9/Kwt/z2iZ0Mj6I16b0M3ali+9sf WqbE0S/5XZEvHhJDQ89UJa8xMa6EbPyNWcoWpMJQTaEvWMARV9mDBqYo4zr1uS+VZT KH7kW9fsfQE5SU3aBbXWQJSv4qjgENKQbfE+jgX8=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1350415892; i=@resistor.net; bh=OMnFpDOsc853SoOGp/CnqAgHcajqkgC8hjDzQ1ANWHg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=rzw8/nbo0sX1OaMF6N6Pe6ejSFAZgzauwhMRYFdgl/K+MuDBtR3CTrSkUYYpOy8ue I+4NBcLveU/fTWYpeOtZe8SNIVmmlnOcRLdWf1kP97xHDk6ryWdt1hO52U1ZtXRrbs xw2ak/HviqiMMtGTkr+VICGTM33SABErkPJz8MYI=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20121016121434.0a932b90@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:29:24 -0700
To: Alfred <ah@TR-Sys.de>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <201210161847.UAA17444@TR-Sys.de>
References: <20121016181042.4662.579.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <201210161847.UAA17444@TR-Sys.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 19:31:35 -0000

Hi Alfred,
At 11:47 16-10-2012, Alfred wrote:
>Speaking as the draft editor:
>
>This draft version incorporates the changes proposed on my
>"A way forward ..." proposal posted to this list on  5 July and
>archived at
>   http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg01776.html,
>taking into account the feedback received for this (in so far as
>it related directly to this draft), and it contains many additional
>changes based on an evaluation of all on-list and off-list comments
>received since the publication of the -02 version.

I'll be candid.  I took a quick look at the draft.  About a third of 
the text in draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03 is non-technical 
material.  When I compare this draft with the one submitted by Peter 
Saint-Andre, I am inclined to pick the latter.

I am ok if you take off-list comments.  I think that it is better to 
discuss about changes on-list.  BTW, you get a +2 for the extensive 
notes in the Changes section.  You are going for a Working Group Last 
Call during the Turkey Day/Shopping season.  It's not the best time 
in my humble opinion.  I understand that I am skidding on process ice 
by saying this.  May I humbly suggest that you discuss the matter of 
the drafts with Peter?  Broad agreement would be my preference.

Regards,
-sm