Re: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document

Alfred Hönes <> Thu, 01 November 2012 10:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C54B21F854F for <>; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 03:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -97.26
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UcBqQp0cjHZk for <>; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 03:10:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E594D21F854A for <>; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 03:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: $/16.3.2) id AA000944469; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 11:07:49 +0100
Received: (from ah@localhost) by (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id LAA23456; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 11:07:48 +0100 (MEZ)
From: Alfred Hönes <>
Message-Id: <>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 11:07:48 +0100
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: $]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="hp-roman8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [urn] call for comments: an alternative 2141bis document
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: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 10:10:08 -0000

As noted previously, I have intentionally deferred speaking up
on this matter in detail until *all* the revised WG draft versions
are available, so they can all be properly referred to.

The revised rfc3044bis (URN:ISSN) draft is expected to become
available soon after I-D submission is open again next week.

It doesn't seem proper to me to not seriously take into account
all the dependencies upon draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-03
of the rfc3406bis draft and the namespace-specific WG drafts.
Previous responses on this thread do not seem to do this.

So please review the aforementioned drafts -- including the rfc3044bis
draft revision, once available -- *before* making your mind up!

Kind regards,