Subject: [apps-discuss] URNBIS needs your eyeballs

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:54:23 -0400

All,

As you know, for years the IETF has suffered with topics that are too exhilarating and highly exciting. With the URNBIS working group we had top IETF scientists don their white lab coats and fill beakers with bubbling fluids to moderate this otherwise explosive subject matter, however we may have solved this problem "too much".

Seriously, the URNBIS work is in need of greater participation from a wider audience. The group is currently weighing revisions to RFC 2141 (URN syntax and namespace subdivision rules, draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-02) and RFC 3406 (URN namespace registration procedures, draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-02). Presently the low number of participants of the working group make judging consensus precarious.

So if you have a few moments, your review of these drafts and the URNBIS work in general would be much appreciated. Otherwise, I'm told, IETF executives are considering selling URNBIS to a pharmaceutical outfit wishing to market sedative hypnotics.

-andy
(co-chair, URNBIS)

Links:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg/

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 05:01:51 +0200

* Andy Newton wrote:
>So if you have a few moments, your review of these drafts and the URNBIS
>work in general would be much appreciated. Otherwise, I'm told, IETF
>executives are considering selling URNBIS to a pharmaceutical outfit
>wishing to market sedative hypnotics.

(Such requests would be much easier to act upon if they came with some
description of what to look for, what has changed, and so on.)
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:51:51 -0400

> description of what to look for, what has changed, and so on.)

Each draft has text embedded noting raised issues and potential changes, 
in addition to an appendix describing the substantive differences 
between the draft and the RFC being revised.

-andy