Subject: [urn] Proposal for work on RFC3405bis in URNBIS working group

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:31:18 +0300

Hello all,

I've recently posted a message to apps-discuss 
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02973.html) describing 
why RFC 3405 needs revising.  As I haven't seen much enthusiasm on this 
proposal at appsawg, I suppose the situation may be different at 
urnbis.  As RFC 3405 was produced by former urn working group, I think 
urnbis may be an appropriate place to perform this work.

Note: I've been always adding Michael Mealling to cc list to my messages 
devoted to RFC 3405, but still haven't received any response.  I'm 
cc'ing this message to him as well.

So, my main issues I'll repeat:

(1) RFC 3405 is based on outdated and obsolete RFC 2717.

(2) Procedures are very fishy; particularly very obscure 
[email-masked] and [email-masked] lists.

(3) The document should be restructured to make reading easier;

(4) Errata need to be fixed.

I'm glad to hear whether there is enough consensus to perform this work 
in urnbis, and, if yes, whether Michael agrees to be an editor of the 
document, or somebody other is willing to be?

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:21:08 -0600

<hat type='AD'/>

> urnbis may be an appropriate place to perform this work.

The URNBIS WG is having trouble producing even the deliverables on its
current charter. Additional work is inappropriate.

> cc'ing this message to him as well.

As far as I know, Michael isn't paying attention to IETF work anymore
because he's having so much fun in the space industry.

> (1) RFC 3405 is based on outdated and obsolete RFC 2717.

But RFC 4395 updated RFC 2717, and I think people can figure out from
RFC 4395 that the notion of URI trees has been deprecated.

> [email-masked] and [email-masked] lists.

The procedures are defined quite clearly in RFC 3405. Are you sure that
the problem is simply that no one cares about inserting NAPTR records
into the 'URI.ARPA' and 'URN.ARPA' zones?

> (4) Errata need to be fixed.

If we revised every RFC that had errata or could be made easier to read,
we'd be very busy working on things that most people simply don't care
about.

> in urnbis, 

The responsible Area Director (c'est moi) is strongly opposed to wasting
time discussing even the possibility of taking on this work, until and
unless the WG finishes the items on its current charter.

> and, if yes, whether Michael agrees to be an editor of the

I very much doubt that Michael will work on this.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/