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

Peter Saint-Andre <> Mon, 15 October 2012 01:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CA7F21F852A for <>; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:46:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.841
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kFB5+vTI6VhU for <>; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F98721F8523 for <>; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 18:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D4EC44011B; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:49:07 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 19:46:37 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
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: Alfred � <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [urn] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-saintandre-2141bis-00
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 Saint-Andre