Subject: Re: [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-semantics-clarif-04.txt

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 18:07:50 +0900

Hello John,

Thanks for your mail. Sorry to be late in responding.

On 2016/06/30 01:00, John C Klensin wrote:
> (sorry... wrong address)
>
> Sean, Martin,
>
> One pre-call observation (at this point, I'm not sure I'll
> manage to make the call)...
>
> While we can debate how to fix semantics-clarif at length
> (including nit-picking about "abstractly correct", which I will
> happily change just to avoid spending time debating it),
>
> semantics-clarif _does not_ change, or try to change, 3986.

That's good to hear. But then the "update 3986" piece wouldn't be necessary.

Regards,   Martin.

> What it attempts to do is to establish some local context,
> relationships, and terminology for URNs that conflict with some
> people's reading of 3986.  If that is still not clear to a
> significant fraction of the WG, it is clear that a new editor is
> needed because I can't stand looking at it any more.
>
> But the bottom line seems to me to be the comment in another
> note that we should just make 2141bis conform to whatever 3986
> says about URIs.  I believe that the WG has already concluded
> that is impossible (at least as many participants in the WG
> under 3986) and that we need to move past it.  If that
> discussion is going to be reopened, let's do it explicitly,
> rather than trying to do it by debating the fine points of
> either of these URNBIS documents.
>
>    john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2016 13:12:33 -0400

> That's good to hear. But then the "update 3986" piece wouldn't

Transcription error.  Removed from the working draft of -05 a
few days ago.

Just to clarify in case it hasn't been clear from other notes,
my plan is to make one more pass through semantics-clarif to fix
that error and tidy up any typographical or editorial issues
that I (or others) identify, get -05 posted, and then stop work
on the document.  If changes are wanted beyond -05, someone will
have to convince the co-chairs that additional work on the
document is worthwhile and find an editor because, unless
something very significant happens, I'm through after -05 is
posted.

I do intend to take another look at the use of "believe" in the
context of your remark about religion.  I will see if the text
can easily be clarified to make it clear that the issue is an
honest difference of opinion among people who interpret 3986
differently and decisions that the WG is not going to try to
deliver a definitive interpretation (which would imply updating
3986), not, e.g., religious belief.  However, I'm not going to
spend a lot of time and energy on it.  While I would welcome
suggested textual changes, I'm not going to spend time on-list
debating them or refining language in ways that would be more
appropriate if we were headed for RFC publication.   Again, I
can be persuaded otherwise, but my most likely response would be
"find another editor".

While I could (and would) change my mind (particularly if I get
instructions from the co-chairs to the contrary), my current
plan is to not issue -05 until we are close to IETF LC on
2141bis.  I don't need the distraction of having the fuss with
this document and don't believe anyone else does either.

    best,
      john