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

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 11:21:28 -0500

--On Monday, November 03, 2014 05:08 -0800 IETF Secretariat
<[email-masked]> 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

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 11:24:23 -0500

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

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 11:51:04 -0500

--On Monday, November 03, 2014 11:24 -0500 Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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,

Thanks Barry.
Exactly what I had hoped for and consider appropriate.

Let me also use this as an advertisement: people in AppsAWG who
are interested in or concerned about this topic and who have not
been following the URNBIS work, probably want to do so.   Having
issues and positions emerge within WG discussions rather than
during IETF Last Call is always A Good Thing.

    john