IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Bengt Neiss <bengt.neiss@kb.se> Tue, 30 October 2012 10:00 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=0650679a98=bengt.neiss@kb.se>
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 DA1A421F84ED for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35]
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 Vsvk2EMEfPg9 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:00:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mspkb001.kb.se (mspkb001.kb.se [193.10.249.137]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC30D21F8490 for <urn@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 03:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: mspkb001.kb.se header.from=bengt.neiss@kb.se; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
From: Bengt Neiss <bengt.neiss@kb.se>
To: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>, "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de>
Thread-Topic: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document
Thread-Index: AQHNst+ASEW74yxshEGWnDKavK8ztpfQhTiAgAAD24CAARsQAA==
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:00:07 +0000
Message-ID: <F52230A186DA59469E8E21CF80FE6D4D0F30848A@srvvm305>
References: <CAAQiQRe+wCBmKfm7up8XY-4RxLnktZiz+nuanprygGcHAYdqAw@mail.gmail.com> <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EFA3F8E0E2@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE> <CAAQiQReAMAdP9Zhiexm5oGEE1uoNFZdZ+2ynUTwLXLeRnT_Bdw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAQiQReAMAdP9Zhiexm5oGEE1uoNFZdZ+2ynUTwLXLeRnT_Bdw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: sv-SE, en-US
Content-Language: sv-SE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received-SPF: none
Cc: "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 10:00:14 -0000

All,

Just would like to add that I agree and support the suggested compromise.

//Bengt

> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: urn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:urn-bounces@ietf.org] För Andrew Newton
> Skickat: den 29 oktober 2012 19:04
> Till: Svensson, Lars
> Kopia: urn@ietf.org
> Ämne: Re: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document
> 
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Svensson, Lars <L.Svensson@dnb.de> wrote:
> > As a compromise: Could it be an option to let the RFC focus on the technical
> implementation and to factor out the background information into a separate
> document and refer to it as a non-normative reference in the RFC?
> 
> 
> Lars,
> 
> Yes, that is absolutely a possibility. Thanks for your comment.
> 
> -andy (co-chair)
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list
> urn@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email