Subject: [urn] URNbis document status

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:22:31 -0400

Hi.

This is mostly to Andy and Peter, but the WG should be aware
that it has been sent.

>From the tracker and some additional information, we now have,
in no particular order:

(1) draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif-00, described in a note I
just sent:
	   Awaiting posting approval from Andy.  That approval
	should also tell the Secretariat to make it as replacing
	draft-ietf-urnbis-urns-are-not-uris (and the latter as
	being replaced).

(2) draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition-03:
	   Just posted with fairly minor changes.  While those
	changes are, I hope, improvements, the main reason from
	posting -03 was to prevent the draft from expiring this
	week.  Once we reach consensus on it (assuming we
	eventually do), it should be identified as having
	superceded draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3044bis-issn-urn and
	draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn).

(3) Definitions and syntax - 2141bis
(draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-07):
   Expired

(4) Namespace definition mechanisms - 3406bis
(draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-09):
   Expired.

(5) NBNs (draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3188bis-nbn-urn-04):
	 Expired spring of 2013 (we all know why, but shouldn't
	lose track of this as a work item).

The last three are charter-identified documents, the other two
are mostly just procedural.  I hope we can see active versions
of at least (3) and (4) Real Soon Now, if only because it is a
little hard to work this way.

   best,
    john

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:53:15 -0600

> little hard to work this way.

Agreed.

Unfortunately since a job change in January my time for IETF work has 
been quite limited, and I have ~15 I-Ds to finish up. My first priority 
consists of the various PRECIS WG items, which I'll be working on this 
week. I will set aside some time next week for URNBIS WG items.

My apologies for any delays I have caused.

Peter

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:55:33 -0400

(off list although I'm happy to repeat this on if you or Andy
think it would be of any help)

--On Monday, August 25, 2014 19:53 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Unfortunately since a job change in January my time for IETF
> work has been quite limited, and I have ~15 I-Ds to finish up.
> My first priority consists of the various PRECIS WG items,
> which I'll be working on this week. I will set aside some time
> next week for URNBIS WG items.

Great.

> My apologies for any delays I have caused.

Until I got the "semantics" piece out, you weren't causing any
delays - I was.  Andy should be able to keep people busy for a
while debating whether my list of issues is the right one and,
if so, what the responses should be.

I think you are going to need some of the bits from this draft
and/or the prior "URNs are not..." one.  If so, holler and I'd
send the XML along.  Also, if I can help in any way, please let
me know -- I have very little time either but am _really_
anxious to get URNs done and off my plate.

best,
   john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:01:40 -0400

On list after all.  Fat fingers.  Sorry.

--On Monday, August 25, 2014 22:55 -0400 John C Klensin
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn