Subject: [salud] Updating the issue tracker

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 16:23:39 -0400 (EDT)

[as chair]

I believe that we are getting close to finishing the draft, i.e., we
can now start enumerating the remaining problems, and that when the
enumerated problems are resolved, we will be agreed that we are done.

To start this process, I am examining all of the issues now in the
tracker
(http://tools.ietf.org/wg/salud/trac/report/1?asc=1&sort=ticket) to
see if we think they are resolved.  I will describe what I believe is
the state of each issue.  I will be updating and closing any issue
that is resolved.

--> If anyone has corrections or comments on an issue, please send
    them to the mailing list.

I will be adding tickets for the additional issues that have come up.
Others are invited to add tickets for issues they discover, or to
suggest tickets for the chair to add.

Ticket #1 (new task)

    http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/salud/trac/ticket/1

    Year/version for domain names used in private-names

    The URN scheme uses domain names to provide unique namespaces for
    private extensions. However, a single domain name may be owned by
    different entities over the years, and so an entity does not have
    clearly unique ownership of a namespace identified only by a domain
    name. Thus, we need to extend domain names with some sort of indicator
    to produce identifiers that are uniquely owned by entities.

We are agreed on using year/month/day of ownership of domain
registration to ensure that URNs do not change their meaning.

We haven't had this system reviewed by Alfred Hoenes and URN people,
although it resembles the system used by other (which?) URN schemes.

Ticket #2

    http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/salud/trac/ticket/2

    Order of labels in domain names used in private-names

    When a domain name is used in a private-name, should the labels be
    in the ordinary order ("example.com") or reverse order
    ("com.example").

We're settled on using domain names in forward order.  Since there is
no longer any rule for truncating a domain name, there is no
motivation to use domain names in reverse order.

Ticket #3

    http://tools.ietf.org/wg/salud/trac/ticket/3

    Connecting the FQDN with the first private label

    (1) When a FQDN is added to create a private-name component, do we
    require an additional label (whose meaning is defined by the owner of
    the FQDN)?

    (2) Suggested syntaxes (omitting any date specification):

	[etc.]

I believe that we've settled on the syntax ...:[email-masked]:...

Ticket #4

    http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/salud/trac/ticket/4

    Using <private-name>s as <alert-categories>

    Should private-names be usable as alert-categories as well as
    components [of] alert-indications (alternatives with an alert-category)?

I believe that we've agreed to allow private-names as
alert-categories, for extensibility.

Ticket #5

    http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/salud/trac/ticket/5

    Allowing multiple <private-name>s in one URN

    Should it be possible to have multiple <private-name>s in one URN? One
    entity would define private refinements of the refinements defined
    privately by another entity.

I believe that we've agreed that this will be allowed.

Dale

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 16:43:18 -0400

> although it resembles the system used by other (which?) URN schemes.

While there is still some polishing to do, ISTM this draft is as 
complete as we intend it to be wrt the issues Alfred raised.
Perhaps now is a good time to ask him to re-review it.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 16:19:13 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
> 

My memory is that the text is slightly wrong still.  I intend to
review it today and either identify the problem or agree that it does
not exist.

But I believe that we have agreed on a solution and it is sufficient
to answer Alfred's objections.

More later...

Dale