Re: [urn] Summary of WG decisions Re: Feedback on draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif-03

[Andrew Newton <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 5:48 PM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Just so you know (and to repeat what I've at least hinted at),
> I've been looking at  draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif since
> Julian's first posting on the issue to see if I could find thing
> that could reasonably be improved.  I've found several [1] and
> put new text into a working draft for -04 but have not posted it
> pending input and direction from the co-Chairs [2].
>

Yes, please publish it.

> I don't believe those changes will satisfy Julian's concerns.
> The reasons are connected to why I've been looking for
> instructions from the co-chairs and summarized in Andy's note.
> >From my point of view, this document updates 3986 _for URNs
> only_, it is not an attempt at a general update (that should
> have been quite clear from the first sentence of Section 4; -04
> will be even more clear on the subject).  In principle, we could
> do a paragraph by paragraph review of what portions of 3986 are
> affected by that, but it would be a lot of work, it would make
> this document longer and more complicated, and I don't believe
> that anyone would read it except for the purpose of finding
> things to quibble and pick nits about.  I see that as
> potentially a huge source of further delay and not particularly
> useful; if you disagree, please work with Andy to convince the
> WG.

Agreed.

>
> Similar comments apply to "whether it is needed".  Before the
> decisions that led, first to the "URNs are not URIs" proposal
> and then to this document, the WG spent seemingly-endless months
> bogged down in discussions about whether a particular mechanism
> or usage was consistent with, or permitted by, 3986.  For each
> case, some people argued that it was, others argued with equal
> passion, that it was not.  We were not converging on subjects
> that were arguably outside the WG's scope, such as whether 3986
> needed work or was clear enough.   While there are technical
> arguments having to do with differing layering abstractions that
> I believe justify the separation, my impression of the WG's
> conclusion was that we simply needed to separate ourselves from
> those arguments if we were to make progress.   So, if the
> question is "whether this is needed to make URN work proceed"
> the answer is that the WG decided "yes" and Section 2 of
> draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif (at least -02 and later) is
> intended to say that.  If the question were, instead, "can the
> WG prove to the satisfaction of all readers and interpreters of
> 3986 than it is impossible to develop a functional URN model
> that meets the needs of the communities the WG has identified
> without some separation from 3986", that answer to that question
> is probably "no", or at least "no within the level of energy
> that exists", but I hope the WG doesn't need to do that.
>

Again, agreed.

-andy