Re: [urn] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-2141bis-00

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 15 October 2012 01:46 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 4CA7F21F852A for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.841
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.841 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.592, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_TOWRITE=1.05, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 kFB5+vTI6VhU for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F98721F8523 for <urn@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D4EC44011B; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:49:07 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <507B6AFD.10506@stpeter.im>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:46:37 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?QWxmcmVkIO+/vQ==?= <ah@TR-Sys.de>
References: <201210141658.SAA14825@TR-Sys.de>
In-Reply-To: <201210141658.SAA14825@TR-Sys.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-2141bis-00
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: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 01:46:40 -0000

On 10/14/12 10:58 AM, Alfred � wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
>> Folks, I must say I'm frustrated by the lack of progress in this
>> working group because I think it's important to move URNs along on the
>> standards track. I was going to provide detailed feedback on
>> draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn, but that too was frustrating because
>> I disagree with so many of the authorial decisions made in producing
>> that specification. Therefore I have decided to write an alternative
>> specification of 2141bis that I hope can serve as a starting point for
>> renewed discussion within the WG. Your feedback is welcome.
>>
>> Peter
> 
> Peter (and all),
> the situation of the WG has been discussed between our AD and the
> WG co-chairs, with background exchanges with WG document (co-)authors,
> during the past couple of weeks, just leading to an update to the WG
> milestones, but unfortunately contributing to further delay to the
> document work I'm occupied with.
> 
> Updates to all WG documents are in progress and should be out very
> soon now.  Dealing with your counter-proposal at this stage would
> further delay the finalizing of the rfc2141bis and rfc3406bis I-D
> revisions I'm working on, with a likely negative impact on meeting
> the revised first milestone; so please admit that I personally will
> defer dealing with your I-D until the in-progress revised WG
> documents are out.

And I will personally defer dealing with
draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn (expired for a month now) until you
update it.

By the way, was your message sent as a co-chair of the working group?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/