Subject: [urn] URNbis working group session is postponed to a conference call within a few weeks

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:38:31 -0500

At the request of the URNbis chair and document editors, I am
cancelling the URNbis session at IETF 92, postponing the meeting to a
conference call within a few weeks.  We'll get that set up and
announced with at least two weeks' notice, and everyone will be
welcome to join it.

The document authors think this is wise because most of the key people
will have trouble attending, even remotely, on Thursday, and because
they think they can be better ready for a meeting if they have a
chance to work out another revision of the documents first.  The
chairs (and I) agree.

Please watch <[email-masked]> for details and discussion.  The
conference call details will also be posted to ietf-announce.

Barry, Applications AD

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:58:16 -0600

> chance to work out another revision of the documents first.  The

Yes, John and I are committed to submitting a revised I-D by March 31.

Peter

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:49:13 -0400

--On Tuesday, March 24, 2015 10:58 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre -
&yet <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> The document authors think this is wise because most of the
>> key people will have trouble attending, even remotely, on
>> Thursday, and because they think they can be better ready for
>> a meeting if they have a chance to work out another revision
>> of the documents first.  The chairs (and I) agree.
> 

Note that this means that anyone who has comments, especially on
the questions raised in the most recent 2141bis and on-list,
should get them posted to the list as soon as possible if you
have not done so already.  Peter and I have not discussed
specific cutoffs, but comments posted before this Friday (27
March) are a lot more likely to be discussed as needed and
reflected in the document than ones that appear as we are
finishing things up.

Anyone who needs time to post such comments should note that we
just gave you back two hours of this Thursday :-(

    john

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:06:49 +0900

> just gave you back two hours of this Thursday :-(

Strictly speaking, that only applies to those who planned to attend (in 
person or remotely :-).

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:24:56 -0400

--On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:06 +0900 "\"Martin J.
Dürst\"" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Anyone who needs time to post such comments should note that
>> we just gave you back two hours of this Thursday :-(
> 
> Strictly speaking, that only applies to those who planned to
> attend (in person or remotely :-).

Yes.  But I assumed that everyone participating was so
interested and dedicated that they expected to attend one way or
the other :-)  I have lots of delusions of that sort.  :-)  :-)

   john

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:38:06 -0400

On 03/24/2015 02:49 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> just gave you back two hours of this Thursday:-(
Except that some of us are busy at IETF and may not have any free time 
until next week :)

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 23:40:01 -0400

> the other :-)  I have lots of delusions of that sort.  :-)  :-)

I, apparently, have the delusion that people who are interested and 
dedicated to this work will actually show up at meetings.   Silly me for 
shelling out the bucks to get there, out of the realization that trying 
to communicate my concerns from a distance wasn't working.

Keith

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 22:45:47 -0500

> to communicate my concerns from a distance wasn't working.

I'm not sure what's going on but it does seem to be the case
that active participants are not showing up for meetings quite
as reliably as they used to.  We're seeing this in a number
of working groups.  They're still cranking out text and active
on mailing lists but they may or may not show up for meetings.
I think this has quite a bit to do with institutional support,
so the challenge, aside from making more effective use of mailing
lists and tools suck as issue trackers, is how to provide better
support for remote participants, whether they're document
authors, or they're working group participants and document reviewers.

I'm hopeful that we can have a very effective virtual interim
in early-to-mid April, but we need for people who have concerns
about the documents to show up.  I hope you'll be there.

Melinda

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 01:14:23 -0400

> about the documents to show up.  I hope you'll be there.

Melinda,

the history of this WG in particular seems to be that the people who 
have been driving it have been hostile not only to input from people 
whom they deemed as "outsiders", but also hostile to any URN 
functionality other than that which they wanted, and in fact hostile to 
the primary intended purpose of URNs.

Keith

---

From: "Svensson, Lars" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 08:18:41 +0000

> reflected in the document than ones that appear as we are

I shall send my comments to the list either later today or tomorrow.

Best,

Lars

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 17:19:58 +0900

> the other :-)  I have lots of delusions of that sort.  :-)  :-)

The meeting would be 02:00-04:00 (am) here in Tokyo. I could put some 
headphone plugs into my ears to pretend that I'm listening, but my brain 
wouldn't be awake (sorry!), even if during my daytime, I'm quite 
interested in the work of the WG.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:24:04 -0400

--On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 01:14 -0400 Keith Moore
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> in early-to-mid April, but we need for people who have
>> concerns about the documents to show up.  I hope you'll be
>> there.
> 
> Melinda,
> 
> the history of this WG in particular seems to be that the
> people who have been driving it have been hostile not only to
> input from people whom they deemed as "outsiders", but also
> hostile to any URN functionality other than that which they
> wanted, and in fact hostile to the primary intended purpose of
> URNs.

Keith,

While I think there has certainly been some difficulty in
different communities talking with each other and some
resistance to the idea of URNs generally, I think I've been
doing some of the driving, think I've been trying to bring
"outsiders" (if by that you mean people in communities who are
not normally active in the IETF) into the discussions, and have
not only been open to new functionality but have been looking
and pushing hard for what is needed to support it.  So, from my
perspective, the comment above is both incorrect and insulting.

I do believe the WG has had problems with different communities
of use and users having trouble talking with, and listening to,
each other.  That has slowed progress, but I believe we are
making progress.  Similarly, I think we have spent too much time
on relationships with 3986, some of that possibly complicated by
people who don't like the idea of URNs and would like to kill
them by forcing them into a narrow, locator-oriented, box.
Those are just personal opinions and I'm not pointing any
fingers.   But I don't think advocates of either position are
either a majority of the WG or "driving the WG".  Maybe
"driving" a few of us nuts occasionally, but that is a different
issue that may go more to the patience of those who are being
thus driven than to any evil intentions.

As far as I can tell, almost everyone who has been participating
actively wants the effort to succeed and sincerely wants to be
sure their particular needs and perspectives are represented.
One may disagree with some of them (as I often have), but I
don't think any of it rises (or falls) to a level that would
justify your comments above.

I do believe that one of our problems is that, even if one
excludes those who don't like the idea of URNs, different
participants have different views as to the "primary intended
purpose" of URNs.  I have personally wished on several occasions
that I had tried harder 20 years ago to force enough of typology
of what are now URNs to give us a few different URI schemes with
different properties.  For example, it appears to me that our
work would be easier today if pure names that didn't resolve at
all, names whose resolution was tied to DDDS, and at least one
category of names that resolved in some other way or through
some other mechanisms were each associated with a separate
scheme.  However, even if I'm right (and I may not be), it is
much too late now and I (and, AFAICT, most others here, at least
most days) are trying to work to make the best of what we have.

I think that, if you think there is a "primary intended purpose"
from which the WG is departing in some pathological way, it
would be very helpful if you posted a short and clear
description of that purpose to the list (or, if more detail is
needed, in an I-D) and do it soon.   Such a statement would be
most useful if coupled with a clear statement about what you
think should be done, but even the description alone would be
helpful, at least to me.   I think there is still an opportunity
to change people's thinking or at least to have other
perspectives reflected in the documents.  But it also seems to
me that, precisely because progress is being made, we are
running out of time for that kind of input.  As you certainly
know from your time as an AD, a response to Last Call comments
of "complained a lot, never could be pinned down to specifics of
his concerns and details of what changes he thought were needed"
would not get those comments much of a hearing.

    best,
     john

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:07:54 -0600

> I shall send my comments to the list either later today or tomorrow.

Thank you, Lars - I appreciate your participation!

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/