Subject: [urn] New version of draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 02:54:17 -0500

Hi.

As everyone should have seen from the I-D announcement, -09 of
draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn is now up.  We believe this
version reflects the results of discussions of the numbered
issues identified a while back.  If you don't think so, or have
additional issues, please speak up.  

For those who find such things helpful, note that a Change Log/
summary has been added as Appendix F, describing changes from
version -08 to this version.

I hope we are getting close to the home stretch on this
document, so please make comments as specific as possible --
general expressions of principles or concerns are significantly
less helpful.

I'm personally aware of the following outstanding or
questionable issues, in no particular order.  All of these have
been discussed, or at least mentioned, on the mailing list
within  the last several days:

	(1) The syntax for a URN in Section 3 matters and I'm
	not positive that what is there now represents WG
	consensus.
	
	(2) Peter and I have tweaked the various recommendations
	in Section 3.3 a bit further.  People should be sure
	that what is says is what they want and, if it isn't,
	suggest and discuss very specific alternate text and
	where to put it.
	
	(3) As noted in my response to him (February 06, 2015
	03:20 -0500), I wouldn't know what to do in this
	document to reflect Keith's concerns if the WG believed
	that something should be said.  I'm unsure whether the
	WG can form an opinion as to whether or not something
	should be said without a more actionable statement of
	those concerns, I know I cannot.

In addition, we have discovered that Peter's writing style and
stylistic preferences are not the same as mine.  That should be
no surprise to anyone.  I don't think the differences have
introduced any issues into the document other than those we can
count on the RFC Editor to straighten out.  But, if anyone
notices things they don't like, this would be a good time to
speak up.

I believe the text could go forward without addressing any of
those issues.  If someone thinks they should be addressed,
please say so soon and, again, preferably send text and advice
as to where to put it.

     john