Re: [apps-discuss] ID Tracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-04.txt>

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 03 November 2014 16:24 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <86601DE9FC5C6E8AB9E981FE@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
References: <20141103130845.9428.55882.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <86601DE9FC5C6E8AB9E981FE@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 11:24:23 -0500
Message-ID: <CALaySJL93rFLykd=ek=BtNnxjH21Z3e92A98O+YWwwTtSbVCRQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/scUlQpD1Fl-ZAnJnq-spbVXZzPU
Cc: draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg.all@tools.ietf.org, "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>, Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] ID Tracker State Update Notice: <draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-04.txt>
Precedence: list

So noted.  There is also a discussion going on with W3C about URIs,
IRIs, and URLs, which has to be resolved before this document moves
ahead.  I'll be holding it in AD Evaluation state, and making sure the
appropriate groups and people get involved before we continue,

Barry, the relevant AD

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 11:21 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, November 03, 2014 05:08 -0800 IETF Secretariat
> <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
>> ID Tracker URL:
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-
>> reg/
>
> Alexey and relevant ADs,
>
> Independent of its particular merits, I believe this proposal
> should be put on hold.  A controversy has been going on in the
> URNbis WG for some time that is, at root, how much RFC 3986
> constrains the use, assumptions, and semantics of various URIs,
> including, but not limited to URNs (i.e., URI-format identifiers
> that use the "urn:" scheme) and more general name, or even
> "urn", systems that use other schemes.  At times in that
> discussion, several people have proposed that some things people
> want to do with URNs would be ok in a different scheme, but not
> the "urn:" one.  Keeping in mind that there is no requirement
> for URNs to resolve and that some of our URI assumptions include
> resolution, if such additional schemes were created, the
> community would presumably need to review their relationship to
> various understandings of RFC 3986 as well.
>
> Neither the AppsAWG nor, as far as I know, anyone else has done
> a careful review of draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg against
> developments and discussions in URNBIS.  It cannot be evaluated
> against the conclusions of URNBIS because, at least based on
> consensus statements by the Chair or co-Chairs, such conclusions
> have not been reached.
>
> The above creates a situation in which we could either end up
> issuing contradictory standards or or in which the advancement
> of this specification could be used to turn the task of URNBIS
> from "difficult" to "impossible without making URNs much less
> useful".  Consequently, this specification should either be put
> on hold until after URNBIS successfully concludes its work or
> should be assigned to URNBIS for a pre-IETF-LC review and
> progressed into IETF LC only after URNBIS has affirmatively
> reached consensus that it does not pose a problem.
>
> regards,
>     john
>
>

[apps-discuss] ID Tracker State Update Notice: <d… IETF Secretariat
Re: [apps-discuss] ID Tracker State Update Notice… John C Klensin
Re: [apps-discuss] ID Tracker State Update Notice… Barry Leiba
Re: [apps-discuss] ID Tracker State Update Notice… John C Klensin
[apps-discuss] ID Tracker State Update Notice: <d… IETF Secretariat
[apps-discuss] ID Tracker State Update Notice: <d… IETF Secretariat
[apps-discuss] ID Tracker State Update Notice: <d… IETF Secretariat