Subject: [urn] The "semantics clarification", aka "syntax only" draft

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 01:34:27 -0500

Hi.

As the list has been told by announcements from the tracker,
I've just posted draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif-01.   The
Change Log is fairly comprehensive but, for those looking for a
quick preview:

* I don't believe that it is substantively different from the
previous version or the intent of the WG on which Andy has ruled
there is consensus.

* I've eliminated material that -00 and list discussions
indicated was going to go away.

* This version is aligned with 2141bis-08 and -09 while the
prior version predated them..

* I've done considerable editorial work to make the document
read more smoothly and make it more ready for publication
(should we decide to do that) as well as to incorporate various
clarifications the need for which was identified on the mailing
list.

Those reading carefully will notice two things in the References:

(1) The reference to 2141bis should have had its date and
authors corrected and should be normative now.  Fixed in the
working version that will evolve into of -02 of this "semantics
clarification" I-D -- I'm not going to repost just to correct
that unless the co-chairs tell me to.

(2) There is essentially a forward pointer to
draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition, listing a February 2015
date.  A revised version of that document should be posted
within the next few days.  As a preview, the most important
change in it is eliminating the reference to 3406bis since that
document was collapsed into 2141bis.

    john

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 22:25:21 -0900

> that unless the co-chairs tell me to.

I'm not sure where Andy stands on this sort of thing but since
getting through last call and into IESG review often involves
multiple iterations around what are essentially nits, I tend
to feel it's fine to wait until then to resolve known nits.

> document was collapsed into 2141bis.

Excellent - thanks so much for all your work on getting revisions
out.

Melinda

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 02:50:16 -0500

--On Friday, February 13, 2015 22:25 -0900 Melinda Shore
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> working version that will evolve into of -02 of this
>> "semantics clarification" I-D -- I'm not going to repost just
>> to correct that unless the co-chairs tell me to.
> 

My thinking was close to that.  I hope that several people will
read this version in the next few days.  If they do so
carefully, I'm sure they will find other areas where I botched
things (because I always do).  If we get comments on those, I
can incorporate the fixes and reissue before we go into anything
resembling WG LC.    If we don't, I can reissue with that
trivial change before we go into WG LC.  I just saw it as better
to turn immediately to the other draft rather than fussing with
the various systems to reissue now and, with luck, have to
reissue again during the week.

While I think your reasoning is a little different, the end
result is the same.

    best,
     john

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 20:08:29 -0700

On 2/13/15 11:34 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> I've just posted draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif-01.

I've reviewed this version and I think that it captures the reasoning 
behind the idea of syntax-only consistency with RFC 3986. I might have a 
few small editorial suggestions for the author and will send those under 
separate cover.

Peter