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

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

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/