Subject: Re: [urn] Document status and related issues - semantics clarification (replacing urns-are-not-uris)

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:42:40 -0600

On 9/8/14, 9:50 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
> --On Monday, September 08, 2014 10:42 -0400 Andrew Newton
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 9:42 PM, John C Klensin
>> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>
>>> In both cases, we more or less need to realize that we are
>>> already very far down the path to multiple types and uses of
>>> URNs and that they come with different requirements.  If there
>>> were a collection of requirement spaces or subspaces, the
>>> "pure identifier" or "indicator" uses might lie at one
>>> extreme and the "URN instantiation of sundry well-established
>>> external standards and management systems" (e.g., ISBNs and
>>> ISSNs) might lie somewhat else (not necessarily at an
>>> extreme.  If we take the first approach and get it wrong, we
>>> will almost certainly discover that we've run out of
>>> extension room and that anything else that comes along and
>>> belongs in the requirement space needs, e.g., a URS (Uniform
>>> Resource Snafu), more or less along the lines of the "new
>>> scheme" model proposed in Toronto.  Maybe that would be an ok
>>> outcome.  But, if we want the URN umbrella to cover as much
>>> of the requirements space as possible, generality is probably
>>> our friend.
>>
>> I think generality is a good thing, but I wonder if we have
>> enough people/bandwidth to do it.
>> (fyi, that's just me thinking aloud, not guidance)
>
> Given the relatively small number of people who seem willing and
> able to engage on the broad issues on an ongoing basis, as
> distinct from focusing narrowly on some particular set of
> applications and/or preserving the view of what URNs are able
> that is reflected in RFC 3986, I think there is reason at this
> point to believe that we do not.
>
> On the other hand, if we don't go for the generality, I think
> there is a real and serious question about whether the WG should
> continue to work on developing a solution for which
> counterexample to the hypothesis of adequacy are likely.   Put
> differently, the IETF can cause, or contribute to, a fork by
> doing a job that doesn't meet some needs or we can do it by
> giving up.  The latter is obviously unattractive, but might be
> less painful for those of us who seem to be doing a
> disproportionate fraction of the work.

I don't think anyone here wants a fork, which is why we're still engaged 
in activity (to the extent we are).

>>>>> I want to agree with you.  But Section 1.1.3 appears to say
>>>>> that the term "URN" refers to both the URN scheme (i.e.,
>>>>> what 2141 defines) and lots of other things ("any other URI
>>>>> with the properties of a name").
>>>>
>>>> Okay.  IMNSHO, that means RFC3986 is broken and that should
>>>> have been caught at the time, but I appreciate the political
>>>> sensitivities (then and now) and am willing to flag it as
>>>> something to come back and fix if possible.
>>>
>>> While you conclude from this that 3986 is broken and I,
>>> personally, agree with you, it was clear in Toronto (and on
>>> the mailing list before and after) that the WG does not have
>>> consensus on that point.
>>
>> Even if we did have consensus on that (and we may), it is also
>> irrelevant. The AA serenity prayer comes to mind here.
>
> It isn't irrelevant if --as I think some people have suggested
> (or nearly so)-- the WG decides to suspend work until 3986bis
> can be completely and agreed to.  As I have said in response to
> those suggestions before, I believe that, in practice, that
> would be just a different way to give up, but that is just my
> opinion.

Agreed.

>>> Wfm.   By the way, I intend to start pulling text out as soon
>>> as the WG and Andy will let me.  That should not be before
>>> 2141bis-08 appears, but my goal was to get all of the text
>>> into one document that people could look at and think about,
>>> then remove everything that was not clearly relevant.  So, if
>>> it is possible to make good progress from this point, I'd
>>> expect that most of the text that might be confusing would
>>> have disappeared before your six months are up.
>>
>> Rip it out! We always have the historical versions.
>
> I'm on travel or otherwise out of pocket for almost 3/4 of this
> month and October is unlikely to= be better. As a result you are
> going to get at most one more draft in the next two or three
> weeks and probably no more than one more in October.  So I will
> tentatively start, but really would prefer to see 2141bis before
> I post.  I'll go ahead and generate a stripped-down version
> without it if Peter tells us that we shouldn't expect that draft
> any time soon but, so far, I gather we are on schedule for the
> next day or two.

Those hopes were dashed. However I am spending time and thought now to 
catch up and figure out what might need to change in 2141bis. (Of which 
I consider myself very much an editor at the disposal of the WG.)

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/