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

Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> Thu, 25 October 2012 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@hxr.us>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D176821F8971 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.939
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.939 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qklFrQ2kYC7p for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A11021F8970 for <urn@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so2038218lam.31 for <urn@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=7DdgicaRWj61ZXF0kH5xJlIG9q4PnVgNE9QrHc5kdrc=; b=EoDsIycl4SEpykWu1wJRln1i1WWtoKaa+exVLWtzKWRXU5fpE/6AU5iMxpLlC7gQXm W6Pp8SERGlTGEREQk9orSFrysOjnZInAhUixtOFt5bBrwUe4JYHbPJns3S0ULyWU3TBu G/CUU8EJAMADcqedCyYrZZdfewZ82ioht/3m5W90eMkdGBiNc5or/aDeVf3+qreQ9s8D B9s1lGGhSzWfo6zBAOCJBhXcTbnUZjfk3nMxyBah0XZTcE6SUJoht7+IIQPhvVP3/YDG gSMNn1RZYp2oFyM20p5l9mlnErIRCvEq4AKqylgm8/eIeXtp0F/zJLMAfA7MIkS5dqrd +hXg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id tb5mr18046487lab.44.1351190099972; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:34:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: []
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:34:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAQiQRe+wCBmKfm7up8XY-4RxLnktZiz+nuanprygGcHAYdqAw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
To: urn@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm4ACHsR4e/HtlffFKBaxpd9lksDQxGrJm/DRcii4BXhu/6ruoJ3a4OgGklKUihuvGm2wxP
Subject: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document
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: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 18:35:03 -0000


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
Additionally, some reviewers of our adopted document have expressed
concern regarding its unnecessary wordiness, especially in comparison
with the alternative.

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?

The two documents can be found here:

We will use the IETF standard of rough consensus to determine the way forward.

Finally, should the working group desire an alternative approach, we
intend to preserve and publish the historical and non-normative
information found in our current document. This information is
valuable and important.

co-chair, URNBIS