Subject: [URN] status

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 17:57:35 -0500 (EST)

Hello again,

The logical follow-on question to my last mail is: "what's left to do?"
to which the answer is, blissfully, "not much" -- at least for the Working
Group.  Clearly, things are picking up steam in the development and
user communities.

Specific things left on the table for this working group:

	A URN Namespace for IETF Documents 

This document is essentially done.  Destined for "informational" status, 
we've been waiting to last-call it to be sure that the "URN Namespace 
Definition Mechanisms" document (to which the above is meant to comply) is
acceptable to the IESG.  That went up last Fall, and I have not been
able to get an answer from Keith as to whether it is just stuck
in the normal backlog of things, or if there are actually issues with it.
I hope to find out by/at Minneapolis.

Leslie.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  "Never confuse                               Leslie Daigle
     an appreciation of the simple                              
              for                              Bunyip Information Systems Inc.
     a lack of understanding of the complex."  +1 514 285 0088
                  -- ThinkingCat               [email-masked]
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Justin Couch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 15:31:08 +0800

> Group.  Clearly, things are picking up steam in the development and

I suppose I count myself as one of these.

As a follow-on to this post, where do we go after this WG? For example,
what home should we find for building up a collection of RFC's for
different resolver services? As URNs become popular, resolvers using
X.500 services, file based and probably many others could do with some
form of standardisation. Are there plans to form a follow up WG or
maintain this one for that purpose?

-- 
Justin Couch                                   Author, Java Hacker
Snr Software Engineer                     [email-masked]
ADI Ltd, Systems Group              http://www.vlc.com.au/~justin/
Java3D FAQ:       http://tintoy.ncsa.uiuc.edu/~srp/java3d/faq.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights.
 Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it
 a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to
 distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many
 frames or one frame for many lights?"      -Subcomandante Marcos
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Michael Mealling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 09:45:26 -0500 (EST)

> maintain this one for that purpose?

Usually things like this are handled by simply publishing an informational
RFC on that particular subject. As needed the consituency can request
that the RFC be considered a proposed standard but ADs usually want some
review by some knowledgeable group before hand. Sometimes that requires
creating a Working Group, sometimes it doesn't.

I suspect that the ADs will identify a set of folx to act as reviewers
for URN related issues in other documents. If they think that a new
Working Group needs to be formed then we'll go through that process.

If things do get 'busy' then I think we may have to revisit some of the
registration issues in various documents...

-MM

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | www.rwhois.net/michael
Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:         14198821
Network Solutions	|          www.lp.org          |  [email-masked]

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:16:13 -0500

At 09.45 -0500 1999-03-11, Michael Mealling wrote:
> for URN related issues in other documents.

Exactly, any takers?

I.e. I would like to have people "with clue" that can have a look at 
I-Ds that talk about naming of things. If you know about URNs, 
"ordinary URLs" and (the problems with) LDAP DNs and the domainname 
wars...let me know.

You can catch me in Minneapolis in the corridors or the bar if you 
want to talk about it.

And,...when we talk about reviewers in the IETF, we do not talk about 
any commitment from any side. We are only talking about the ADs 
having a list of people which one can ask for reviewing a document. 
At _that_ point, you say yes or no to do the job.

    paf

------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Director, Applications Area               Email: [email-masked]
IETF                                             URL: http://paf.se
                                          PGP Key ID: 0xBD236602

   In theory there is no difference between theory and practice,
   but in practice, there is.

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 10:02:16 -0500 (EST)

As one further thought to Michael's comments --  I suspect that the first
step is to publish (informational) RFCs; if there is enough momentum or
the need to bring efforts together, I think this will define a work item
worthy of a new working group, specifically focused on resolution services. 

Leslie.

---

From: "Aaron E. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 19:02:51 -0500

Hello Leslie and all,

I'm preparing now to register a few URN namespaces, and wonder if you or
others could point me towards the proper documents to file? I understand
this isn't as simple a process as simply submitting an online form, as
we do for domains through InterNic, so want to make sure I'm heading in
the right direction :)

Cheers,
Aaron