Re: [urn] Feedback on draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif-03

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 2016-05-17 17:38, Andrew Newton wrote:
> ...
>>> On draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif-03:
>>>
>>> This currently updates RFC 3986. Of course we can do this, but
>>> RFC 3986 is a full standard, and thus this draft needs to be
>>> crystal clear about what exactly is being updated. I don't
>>> think it currently does that; it does some hand-waving with
>>> respect to what fragments and queries are (without saying
>>> exactly what's wrong in RFC 3986). It does *not* talk about
>>> changes to equivalence and relative resolution, although
>>> draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-16 seems to attempt to change
>>> them.
>>
>> The update to 3986 is to remove URNs from the scope of URNs
>> except with regard to URI syntax.  3986 says, effectively, that
>> URNs are just like any other URIs; the "update" is that they
>> they are not.  The informal description of
>> draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif as "syntax only" is
>> consistent with that.
>>
>> That particular "syntax only" decision has some fairly sweeping
>> implications, which were discussed at the time.  In particular,
>> it makes the definitions in 3986 --either whatever precise ones
>> appear or whatever oral tradition they have accumulated in other
>> forums -- irrelevant: they are not syntax.  So one can argue,
>> for example, that the way draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif
>> uses the term "resource" or distinctions it attempts to make
>> about it are undesirable, but one cannot appeal to inconsistency
>> with 3986 to support that view.   In addition, to the degree to
>> which the WG has already closed out this issue, an argument
>> about inappropriateness is presumably out of order unless it
>> includes fundamentally new arguments.  However, again, that
>> requires a judgment by the co-chairs.
>>
>
> Which hasn't changed. The group previously decided to go down the
> "syntax only" path. This has been discussed in documents and several
> working group sessions. And I don't think we should reopen the issue
> as it was a pivotal decision that has been a prerequisite for the
> progress made so far.
> ...

WG consensus isn't IETF consensus. If this WG wants to update a 
standards track document, it will have to be able to answer the 
questions that I asked.

I hear from you and John: "RFC 3986 syntax, but not semantics", as if 
there was agreement about what parts of RFC 3986 are which (or is there?).

So, once again, if we say "updates: 3986" we need to be able to explain 
*precisely* which parts of RFC 3986 are affected (and why, fwiw).

 > ...

Best regards, Julian