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

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sun, 14 October 2012 23:15 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
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 3B67D21F844C for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.775, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_TOWRITE=1.05, 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 pkPs4wWo5hYA for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:15:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E65321F8442 for <urn@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so3384094lam.31 for <urn@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ogOYon8otbnL914j37fBcJrLRYDX8Fz+Dzc64rI1HN0=; b=vux3kJnCRxUyT4wzTCFWCKT+YFn2eOd+gaMwRkKBfh5KkJj7+bRM3mK/flqnLjqJOO VuhvKpL4SmeNNa6cibZpjVKmuADjgl0VbZycRKAVtNfp89OsF9NYlzrZ/ElLW9D4vlRP W7gun3Vaa3avsugqkmZ9NCsl1clwucZtU4xXGnf/4NfkrxK8Uai6jOQmFWb0nT899W+c 0/obqpHN19zF6nobUHeL2mmVY5omg+k+JMtjhHSyyxRYXLOvu8m+pZGGHzzQ5ebXs4N8 FxLKO8LKxQmi6ykRHahTZkMA9lFi6aa93WbosQxbzdDITlN6VtvXpXwX5GRwIhwBhdyW ZVNw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.105.33 with SMTP id gj1mr8547336lab.49.1350256516989; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.150.194 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 16:15:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201210141658.SAA14825@TR-Sys.de>
References: <507A1983.6070308@stpeter.im> <201210141658.SAA14825@TR-Sys.de>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:15:16 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: hIADR2rQwYus2Twl8DIjbo4KkzM
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVA5TjwUCu7D79OS5NXiLyVyhTV2fp1i3x+egrqconE5iA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alfred_H=CEnes?= <ah@tr-sys.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d040716e30d039204cc0d18b1
Cc: "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [urn] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-2141bis-00
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: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:15:19 -0000

For what it's worth, I appreciate that Peter has done this, and favour his
proposal (though I do have comments about it, which I'll get to soon).  The
working group, not the AD, decides what direction it will take, so this
isn't something I will make demands about... but I strongly encourage the
WG and the chairs to take Peter's proposal seriously.  I find the current
WG version to be far too verbose, and in a wrong direction.  If you really
think all that chat about history and background and motivation needs to be
published somewhere, I would rather see it put into the WG wiki.

Barry

On Sunday, October 14, 2012, Alfred HÎnes wrote:

> 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,
>   Alfred.
>
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list
> urn@ietf.org <javascript:;>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn
>