Subject: Re: [urn] 2141bis: abstract and intro

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:00:12 -0400

--Keith Moore wrote:

> I'm not sure that the errata system even existed until several
> years after 3986 came out.   But basically there were a set of
> people who weren't well plugged into IETF who didn't think
> that URNs should exist, and the text about URNs in 3986 was
> written to promote that view.  So if you wonder why 3986 is
> inconsistent with 2141, that's why.  3986 was written in part
> to try to undermine 2141.

Keith,

I'm no fan of 3986 (and far less a fan of 3987).  I loathe
fragment identifiers in particular.   But 3986 managed to get
approved as a full Internet Standard.  There are, as Peter
points out, no errata that support your point of view -- even if
the errata system didn't exist in its present form then, it does
now.  More important, there are no published RFCs, or, as far as
I can tell, even expired I-Ds, that summarize the history and
counterarguments or even provide a "use of URIs as specified in
3986 that were not permitted in 2141 considered harmful"
argument.

That combination creates an extremely strong presumption that
3987 describes a community consensus, regardless of you taste
(or mine) and of our concerns about how that consensus was
arrived at.

If you don't like it, you know better than most what to do about
it:

(1) If you believe that there are specific errors,
misrepresentations, and/or lies, submit those errata.  I'd
assume that they would be rejected, but you would at least have
a stake in the ground.

(2) Write the I-Ds that describe the issues and see if you can
get enough traction to either reopen 3986 or at least update it
with cautionary notes about conditions under which the
controversial features should be used (or not).

I suggest the second is more likely to be productive than the
first, but YMMD.  However, an a priori belief that neither is
likely enough to get traction to be worth the writing time would
be nearly tantamount to an admission that 3986 really does
represent community consensus, however wrong-headed you might
consider that consensus.

I have similar feelings about hair-splitting about the
definition of things that look like URNs (e.g., start in "URN:")
but that need to be called something else.  The issue there
isn't, IMO, about writing specs for those who won't read them.
It suggest that the difference between those who will read specs
that try to create and enforce precise and subtle terminology
and those who won't is that the first group will know that they
are confused and the second won't have that knowledge.

Let's concentrate on getting a spec that works and that
recognizes the reality of the situation we find ourselves in, no
matter how uncomfortable we are about that reality, unless it
can be shown that the reality is actually harmful to
interoperability or the Internet more generally.

   john

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:59:23 -0400

> (or mine) and of our concerns about how that consensus was

I understand how people arrive at those presumptions.
> controversial features should be used (or not).

At least for the moment, I'm not trying to fix 3986.  I recognize that 
that's an uphill battle.  I'm just trying to provide context to this 
group' s discussion of 2141bis.

(For that matter, even if I were to be able to get 3986 updated, it 
probably wouldn't happen in time to affect the output of this group.   
And I think it's more worthwhile to fix 2141bis than to fight that 
battle at the moment.)

> interoperability or the Internet more generally.

In reality, I generally find that things work better when people aren't 
laboring under illusions such as those documented in 3986.

Keith