[urn] Open letter to WG participants (was: Re: Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-06.txt)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 19 September 2013 15:10 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
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 123B721F992A for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.493
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.106, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JvHAeS36RvXL for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418AE21F991E for <urn@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1VMfry-000FDq-Lv; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:10:14 -0400
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:10:09 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: urn@ietf.org
Message-ID: <DE0C252DDFED432BE55C5809@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <523A89F6.8040603@helsinki.fi>
References: <24637769D123E644A105A0AF0E1F92EFA4378BCB@dnbf-ex1.AD.DDB.DE> <522096F9.5000609@helsinki.fi> <A3C12A020F3F60A0D8906654@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <5226A326.909@stpeter.im> <8C4C9A1E61F8B275809A92C9@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <523A89F6.8040603@helsinki.fi>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: [urn] Open letter to WG participants (was: Re: Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-06.txt)
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: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 15:10:21 -0000
Hi. This note started as part of a reply to To be clear, I've got two personal goals in this. I hope most of the WG shares them, but I have no way to tell. One is to get the core set of URN specs far enough along that the WG can finish them and get them through the process and published. Because of necessary interdependencies, I think that list is 2141bis (syntax), 3406bis (namespace definition and registration), last month's ns-reg-transition document, and, probably, 3188bis (NBN). I'm concerned that, if we don't get on with this, various parties will make assumptions about what we will do or should do and go off on their own, leading to future compatibility and interoperability problems. In addition, there are a number of URN registrations in various pending states now (including one that stirred up a lot of noise on the IETF list in the last weeks). We would be far better off if they could get approved/registered under 3188bis. Otherwise, we will need to worry about whether or not they need to be upgraded. The WG will be three years old in late November. I hope and wish we could set a target of having the documents in the hands of the IESG well before that, ideally before Vancouver. Second, it seems obvious to me that we need to future-proof 2141bis and, to the extent necessary, 3406bis. There have been several incidents around the IETF in recent years in which people have said things equivalent to "cannot change or expand that feature because it was specified a different way once and has to be that way forever". The discussions that follow are always complex and unpleasant because the tradeoffs between stability and increased functionality or interoperability are difficult; usually the results are "least bad" solutions. In particular for queries, 2141 was wise in reserving "?" and therefore queries, but, if we even allow "?" in the syntax, we need to be careful that we don't create a future trap for ourselves. A registry of query keywords would be a big step and almost certainly not in the spirit of 3986. It is pretty clear to me that, if we want to do it, we need to do it now, not just to create the registry and rules for it but probably to define a way of distinguishing, by syntax, between keywords that are intended to have global meaning and those that are to be interpreted locally. I don't see reserving a specific keyword or two to have nearly the same implications as trying to give still-unspecified keywords global meanings but either approach becomes part of the critical path and interferes with my "swift completion" fantasies, especially given the speed at which this WG seems to hold discussions. best, john p.s. the supposed WG LC that started this thread was announced for two weeks starting 13 August and was supposed to terminate on 27 August (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg02062.html). It is now over three weeks since the closing date and I, at least, have no idea where we are. Do the WG Chair(s) think we have consensus? Is a new version of 2141bis to reflect the many comments expected and, if so, when? Given the dependencies between 2141bis and 3406bis and the risk that details of the latter will require changes to the former, when do we expect the promised new version of 3406bis?
- [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-urnbi… Andrew Newton
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Michael Mealling
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Keith Moore
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Keith Moore
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Svensson, Lars
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Keith Moore
- Re: [urn] Fwd: Working Group Last Call of draft-i… Pekka Järveläinen
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Keith Moore
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Keith Moore
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Svensson, Lars
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Svensson, Lars
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Keith Moore
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Keith Moore
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Svensson, Lars
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Keith Moore
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Svensson, Lars
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Keith Moore
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Keith Moore
- [urn] Separate schemes for resources and resoluti… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Svensson, Lars
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Michael Mealling
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Keith Moore
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Keith Moore
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… jehakala
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… jehakala
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Keith Moore
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Juha Hakala
- [urn] Open letter to WG participants (was: Re: Wo… John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] Open letter to WG participants (was: Re… SM
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] Open letter to WG participants (was: Re… Andrew Newton
- Re: [urn] Open letter to WG participants Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] Open letter to WG participants (was: Re… Svensson, Lars
- Re: [urn] Open letter to WG participants Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [urn] Open letter to WG participants Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] Separate schemes for resources and reso… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] Working Group Last Call of draft-ietf-u… Peter Saint-Andre