Re: [urn] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-21: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Hi (IESG, other than Alexey, Alissa, and Stephen, not copied to
save them clutter),

The IESG just tentatively signed off on this draft, pending a
revised document (don't start celebrating yet).  That means only
editorial corrections and changes already agreed.

I'd like to get that draft posted within the next 24 hours so
that the IESG can issue an approval notice and we can get this
behind us (modulo RFC Editor changes and AUTH48).

As far as I know, the following changes are in the queue:

(1) Alissa's suggestion about r-component below.  The more
complex text was trying to make a slightly different and
stronger point, but I don't think it is worth fighting about and
her text is definitely simpler and shorter.

(2) Stephen's pending text on privacy.  I expect this to be
minimal and clarifying.

(3) Review of Alissa's other suggestions.  Absent strong (and
immediate) comments/objections from the WG, I expect to resolve
them as follows (for more details on some of these, see her
DISCUSS and NO OBJECTION postings to the list):

(3.1) = Section 4.4 =

> 	"Further, all URN-aware applications MUST offer the
> 	option of displaying URNs in this canonical form to
> 	allow for direct transcription (for example by
> 	copy-and-paste techniques)."

> I know this was in 2141, but it seems needlessly constraining
> > on applications and I would be surprised if every
> application that is aware of URNs actually does this. 
>...

I am very reluctant to tamper with this at this point -- it
would, IMO, need WG discussion.  In addition, questions about
what "every application" does and does not do seem as or more
appropriate when we come back to this for full standard.


3.2 = Appendix C =

> "Truly experimental usages MAY, of course, employ
>        the 'example' namespace [RFC6963]."
> 
> It seems inappropriate to have normative language in this
> appendix.

The text appears to me to be more of a comment than a normative
requirement, so I'm simply going to change "MAY" to "may" and
hope that lets us move on.

(4) That is everything on my list.  If anyone has other things,
or I've missed an important note, please speak up _very_ soon.

    john





--On Thursday, March 2, 2017 09:04 -0500 Alissa Cooper
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> OLD
> Thus r-components SHOULD NOT be used for actual
>    URNs until additional development and standardization work
> is    complete, including specification of any necessary
> registration    mechanisms.
> 
> NEW
> Thus r-components SHOULD NOT be used for URNs before their
> semantics have been standardized.