Subject: Meeting Prep

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:52:00 -0400

Hello all,

First and foremost on our plate right now is a review of the latest
CNRP goals document

        http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-cnrp-goals-00.txt

with a view to finalizing it for publication as an RFC.

Here's how we'll proceed:

        . please review the above document in the light of how
          it addresses the goals that are laid out in our charter

        . if you have any issues with the document as it is
          currently constituted, please bring them to this
          mailing list, preferrably this week.

If there issues not resolvable on the mailing list, we'll take them
as agenda items at our meeting in Washington.

I'm a little worried that the current silence on the list means that
people are deferring reading the draft until they actually head off to
the meeting.

I don't think this will lead to the most productive session, so
consider this fair warning that I reserve the right to refuse new
agenda items/document issues not brought up on this list beforehand.

So -- please read the document, and bring up your issues.  If there
are none (not inconceivable, since this is not the first draft of
the document!) I'll issue a WG last call on the document and we can
ship it off to the IESG for publication as an RFC.

Leslie.

--

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

"Reality:                                        Leslie Daigle
     yours to discover."                         [email-masked]
            -- ThinkingCat

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

---

From: Terry Allen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 09:31:31 -0700

I've read the document (and for an earlier version, sent
comments to the authors).  I think it matches the charter
pretty well.

I have two reservations, which I'll state just for the record:

1.  The use of the word "namespace" is going to create confusion
because of the abuse of the term in "XML Namespaces".  Be prepared
to spend time explaining (but don't worry about changing the draft).

2.  I know that the aims of CNRP are quite limited, and the draft
meets them, but I cannot help but think that to get useful results
(not the sometimes comic ones you get today) you're going to have
to be able to specify what kind of Common Name you're looking for.
(I think that the term "Common Name" is tendentious, but never
mind that.)  Perhaps the provision of a typology of names is for
subsequent work (and I don't want to hold up this draft for it),
but free text specification of type of name isn't going to work
very well.  Possibly the last sentence in section 5 is a placeholder
for the mechanism needed to distinguish names of persons from names
of books from names of companies from names of products.

So now the silence is broken for you, M Chair!

regards, Terry Allen