Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif-04.txt

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 12:00:56 -0400

(sorry... wrong address)

Sean, Martin,

One pre-call observation (at this point, I'm not sure I'll
manage to make the call)...

While we can debate how to fix semantics-clarif at length
(including nit-picking about "abstractly correct", which I will
happily change just to avoid spending time debating it), 

semantics-clarif _does not_ change, or try to change, 3986.
What it attempts to do is to establish some local context,
relationships, and terminology for URNs that conflict with some
people's reading of 3986.  If that is still not clear to a
significant fraction of the WG, it is clear that a new editor is
needed because I can't stand looking at it any more.

But the bottom line seems to me to be the comment in another
note that we should just make 2141bis conform to whatever 3986
says about URIs.  I believe that the WG has already concluded
that is impossible (at least as many participants in the WG
under 3986) and that we need to move past it.  If that
discussion is going to be reopened, let's do it explicitly,
rather than trying to do it by debating the fine points of
either of these URNBIS documents.

   john