Re: [urn] Feedback on draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif-03

[Andrew Newton <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:44 AM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> --On Sunday, May 15, 2016 14:48 +0200 Julian Reschke
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I haven't seen any substantial feedback on what I wrote two
>> weeks ago. Thus here's my attempt to rephrase this in order to
>> get more people to think about it.
>
> I have been waiting for the co-chairs to take a position on
> whether you are reopening an old topic and will continue to
> wait.  The difference between this topic and those to which I
> have been responding (to at least a subset) is that, while I
> believe we discussed those others and move on, my recollection
> is that Andy made a formal consensus call and closed this one.
> If we start revisiting old topics without substantial new
> information, it very nearly guarantees that we will never get
> finished.
>
> Reluctantly and against my better judgment, but in the interests
> of saving time, a clarification below.
>
>> On draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif-03:
>>
>> This currently updates RFC 3986. Of course we can do this, but
>> RFC 3986 is a full standard, and thus this draft needs to be
>> crystal clear about what exactly is being updated. I don't
>> think it currently does that; it does some hand-waving with
>> respect to what fragments and queries are (without saying
>> exactly what's wrong in RFC 3986). It does *not* talk about
>> changes to equivalence and relative resolution, although
>> draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-16 seems to attempt to change
>> them.
>
> The update to 3986 is to remove URNs from the scope of URNs
> except with regard to URI syntax.  3986 says, effectively, that
> URNs are just like any other URIs; the "update" is that they
> they are not.  The informal description of
> draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif as "syntax only" is
> consistent with that.
>
> That particular "syntax only" decision has some fairly sweeping
> implications, which were discussed at the time.  In particular,
> it makes the definitions in 3986 --either whatever precise ones
> appear or whatever oral tradition they have accumulated in other
> forums -- irrelevant: they are not syntax.  So one can argue,
> for example, that the way draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif
> uses the term "resource" or distinctions it attempts to make
> about it are undesirable, but one cannot appeal to inconsistency
> with 3986 to support that view.   In addition, to the degree to
> which the WG has already closed out this issue, an argument
> about inappropriateness is presumably out of order unless it
> includes fundamentally new arguments.  However, again, that
> requires a judgment by the co-chairs.
>

Which hasn't changed. The group previously decided to go down the
"syntax only" path. This has been discussed in documents and several
working group sessions. And I don't think we should reopen the issue
as it was a pivotal decision that has been a prerequisite for the
progress made so far.

> Some of Juha's recent comments highlight another reason for
> making the "syntax only" distinction and drawing a hard line
> with it: the usage (I'm reluctant to say "definition") of the
> term "identifier" in 3986 is incompatible with the meaning and
> use of that term in the library and information sciences
> community.  Making progress on URNs requires, at least IMO, not
> trying to resolve that incompatibility but does require that the
> terminology of 3986 not be treated as authoritative for URNs.
>
> As to what should be in which document, the status of
> draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif has, for a long time, been
> "decide whether to fold all or part of this into 2141bis when
> the WG has consensus about the substantive content of the
> latter".   I've been reluctant to do a major merge because of
> concern about introducing mistakes in the process, but am happy
> to try to do whatever the WG actually wants.

What content is in which document is up to the discretion of the
document authors. Such things are often a very subjective judgement
where no right answer exists.

-andy