Re: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document

SM <> Sat, 27 October 2012 08:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA6CC21F84CD for <>; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.585
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BmfytHfRuDDA for <>; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:21:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2B321F84B5 for <>; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:21:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9R8LcFV020772 for <>; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1351326101; bh=h/fxBBkr4ubX4YYgEg/cWsozDBz4LCyavfAl48jt/Cs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=3y0ZxD5xGdyb6CqpMAgyJLV/0DZNMywt9YXMT2L5913wBRUnxnucAX/eFF6lh6vZ0 pISRaqX8FTvCbrqC7uSkfi/x2vawlT7gYt9dRwEsyCMWNQ9P4vZnsNQ8bzob4BFJ94 qKLYCMCso90vM72+thrO763l7uQ2qgGpXlPAsACg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1351326101;; bh=h/fxBBkr4ubX4YYgEg/cWsozDBz4LCyavfAl48jt/Cs=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc; b=rSclC/vFLa3mEg2YWYclrUgocmFl0FmGpViGj4J7+NHGXLHfNx9ouwvLp7emgRq23 R2oNDWcaJBqIkwRH0uSYhPBfNb8Xoe9dM1kafMMD2XxHpfsBPaXldJvf2rZFSzAQFN Jll1Hab7C40iyLufFYGLaBBMWVJtl6lm1Edh4HlI=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 01:21:44 -0700
From: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <CAAQiQRe+wCBmKfm7up8XY-4RxLnktZiz+nuanprygGcHAYdqAw@mail.g>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document
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: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 08:21:47 -0000

At 11:34 25-10-2012, Andrew Newton wrote:
>We have received a request for this working group to consider an
>alternative to its adopted 2141bis document
>(draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03). That alternative is


>Can participants of this working group please review both documents
>and express opinions and provide comments as to the direction desired
>for this working group in regards to a 2141bis RFC?

I am inclined to pick draft-saintandre-urnbis-2141bis-00 as it is a 
shorter version of the specification and it contains the material 
necessary for someone to implement the specification.  This is 
conditional on the editor of the document committing to having the 
document ready for Last Call within a short time frame, let's say two months.