From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de Fri May 18 01:33:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A72221F85DF for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 01:33:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.277 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.472, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F7Fbi2eGOBKl for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 01:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 747A221F85D7 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 01:33:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA287579931; Fri, 18 May 2012 10:32:11 +0200 Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id KAA24855; Fri, 18 May 2012 10:32:11 +0200 (MESZ) From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= Message-Id: <201205180832.KAA24855@TR-Sys.de> To: urn@ietf.org Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 10:32:10 +0200 (MESZ) X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [urn] IETF 83 (Paris) - Minutes of URNbis session - please check X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 08:33:38 -0000 It has been somehow missed to bring to your attention: The (draft) Minutes of the URNbis session at the IETF 83 meeting in Paris are available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-urnbis.txt Thanks to Bengt Neiss for taking these minutes! For convenience, I have copied the entire text below. Please check and provide feedback to help fill out a few details. Kind regards Alfred. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ URNBIS Working Group Monday, March 26, 2012 1510-1610 Chairs: Andrew (Andy) Newton Applications Area Advisor: Peter Saint-Andre Scribe: Bengt Neiss 1. Agenda Bashing The published agenda was presented. The item "URNS, Registries & W3C" were removed from the agenda due to the absence of Larry Masinter. There were no objections to the modified agenda and the agenda changes were accepted. The new area director, Barry Leiba, was introduced to the group. 2. draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-02 Andy Newton led the discussion on draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-02 based on statements made in the current version of the text where several issues were noted for closing. Andy encouraged the audience to read the issues and comment before April 16, 2012, for the issues to stay unclosed. Juha Hakala commented on the need for clarification of functional equivalence and that the description of it is unsatisfactory. The group observed that there is still no consensus on fragment identifiers. Leslie Daigle stated that she is not sure that the proposed use of fragment identifiers is consistent with URI syntax. Juha Hakala, on the other hand, meant that it was the aim for the working group to solve this issue. A discussion about the use of fragment identifiers and fragment identifiers connection to media types followed between Juha Hakala and Leslie Daigle, only interrupted by a couple of questions asked by Peter Saint-Andre and Andy Newton for clarification on the issue. Juha Hakala also stated that most name spaces will not use fragment identifiers but that there are name spaces where fragments are manageable. He meant that ISBN have been an example to show how identifiers are used when media types change and that this shows how fragment identifiers can be managed over time. Leslie Daigle also commented on the long text sections in the draft and thought they should be worked on and be much shorter. A suggestion was made by Leslie Daigle to separate the issue on fragment identifiers from the draft and into a document of its own experimental document. 3. draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-02 Andy Newton stated that some have noted as having found consensus. Everyone is therefore encouraged to review the text and send any comments to the mailing list. Juha Hakala commented on the 2-week mailing list review period for formal namespace registrations. Former objections were due to a misunderstanding and that the proposed 2 week period now is ok. Peter Saint-Andre thought it would be good to capture best practices and he will post more on this issue when posting reviews of the documents. Juha Hakala stated that he would like to leave things out from this version concerning the need to provide metadata. Leslie Daigle thought that it might not be enough to just have best practices as examples. 4. draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn-02 A presentation was held by Juha Hakala. - current draft fairly mature - ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 covered - fragment part needs to be revised - need to include discussion of functional equivalence - indicate which resolution services are necessary in the URN namespace - needs some language polishing See presentation for more info. A slide on 3188bis was presented as well(?). - text is mature as regards to syntax, but scope and functional equivalence could/should be discussed in more details See presentation for more info. 5. draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3044bis-issn-urn-00 A presentation was held by Pierre Godefroy. - Three issues exists - Issue 1: Resolution if ISSN's needs to be centralized - Issue 2: Only one ISSN-L will be issued no matter how many media version exists (see presentation for more info) - Issue 3: Updating and management of URLs See presentation for more info The presentation was commented by Peter Saint-Andre. He thought it is unclear at what the identifier points to. A short discussion followed and Juha Hakala stated that the national bodies should provide resolution to a copy of the journal. 6. Closing session The working group meeting closed with a discussion on the involvement in the work. Peter Saint-Andre expressed some concern about the involvement in the discussions and the need to have more people active on the mailing list. Andy Newton suggested the possibility use internet meetings to achieve this. Juha Hakala talked about the composition of the working group. He meant that the working group is a divided community in that sense that there are a technical community and a bibliographic community that rarely meets and it would be good if the technical community could learn from the bibliographic community and vice versa. The work has implications to a broader community that never shows up. NN from Internet Society said that other communities like ORCID or medical communities don't show up because URNs are not well understood. Leslie Daigle meant that the working group might struggle to meet its ultimate goal if there isn't broader participation from other communities. Peter Saint-Andre mentioned that there have been a lot of name space registrations but he was unsure on how to reach out to them and get them to participate in the work. Juha Hakala mentioned that Handle system has been handed over to ITU and wondered what implications this might have for the work at IETF. Peter Saint-Andre relayed a comment from jabber about TC 46 (see Jabber for more info). Juha Hakala responded that he hoped that once the work is done within IETF it could be introduced to TC 46. Peter Saint-Andre stressed the need to think this through before going forward with something like this. Session closed +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de Fri May 18 01:35:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183B421F85EF for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 01:35:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.294 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.294 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.455, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GWiNswWMmSoZ for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 01:35:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89DA521F85D7 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 01:35:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA287670036; Fri, 18 May 2012 10:33:56 +0200 Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id KAA24888; Fri, 18 May 2012 10:33:55 +0200 (MESZ) From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= Message-Id: <201205180833.KAA24888@TR-Sys.de> To: urn@ietf.org Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 10:33:54 +0200 (MESZ) X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [urn] normative language -- a new convention X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 08:35:23 -0000 With URN Namespace registration documents, we have the recurring issue of choosing the appropriate normative language to indicate requirements imposed by the document itself and those imposed by external standards/documents for the underlying namespace, and to distinguish these from the common form of the plain verbs as used in natural language. With the approval of the IESG, RFC 6329 (published in April 2012) has introduced a new convention (see Section 3 of that RFC), and I suggest that we liberally adopt this method for our WG documents: - RFC 2119 terms (in all capital letters) denote normative document requirements according to RFC 2119, which MUST be at a protocol or meta-protocol level and conformance to these terms needs to be verifiable from external behavior of the protocol entities. - The lowercase forms with initial capital: "Must", "Must Not", "Shall", "Shall Not", "Should", "Should Not", "May", and "Optional" are to be interpreted as quotations of external normative requirements posed by other SDOs (in particular, ISO, in our current cases of bibliographic URN Namespaces). - The all-lowercase forms still carry their natural language meaning. It is regarded good practice by some folks to avoid these lowercase forms, but opinions on that advice differ largely. Note that the former RFC Editor, Bob Braden -- who once, as the editor of STD 3 (RFCs 1122 and 1123) had introduced the systematical use of these all-uppercase terms into the Internet Standard document set --, once stated that the proportion of non-capitalized to capitalized "must"/"should"/"may" is one kind of quality scale for RFCs. It should be recalled that Section 6 of RFC 2119 literally says about the capitalized forms: "Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability." Kind regards, Alfred. -- +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: ah@TR-Sys.de | +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ From ted.ietf@gmail.com Fri May 18 08:33:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563A821F8564 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 08:33:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.444 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.855, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BBki5I-ePCmt for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 08:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EAE621F8562 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 08:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so3157354vbb.31 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 08:33:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9kUHFbpQ2LW9yc6ylyjBqLSwFN/M5IkkRFkpsX+SeOo=; b=AAlrhPn8WhOQ9TkogkOXQbr0fy3obgwm1AFGpEz1fP/XiqEA/I1lcn60b0ePTWdiqF hQYQFcbcE+BQ2f6ss/o/lnnZjOTLMNjORmgmq9C+BFZEpSSrYj7ftzERg5msfxAQeCID v7i8ezLUmXIUDTbTU5yqTPBmqFHM7tEu7wZfqUpwxKmuQ48tCoGMSzxB38mF1iA6GwE1 sXLRlKV/+Tfs37i9JmXVwQ5b9o9rHrDYF47M4bLkh2UGSj9EOUYrwQzcExpADa0gC+Kl GQBGRXrq1xNdXtlsFkU5dbrOwW9QKyYvCZKaYqlOGDh0U19KqbY2LA0zJkL7GCMntj12 zaWw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.73.42 with SMTP id i10mr5586660vdv.116.1337355214776; Fri, 18 May 2012 08:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.162.99 with HTTP; Fri, 18 May 2012 08:33:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201205180833.KAA24888@TR-Sys.de> References: <201205180833.KAA24888@TR-Sys.de> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 08:33:34 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ted Hardie To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alfred_H=CEnes?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [urn] normative language -- a new convention X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 15:33:36 -0000 Howdy, I am quite concerned about the convention proposed. Using case to distinguish the origin of a requirement seems to me a very fragile method compared to simply quoting the appropriate standard in its existing language. Consider, for example, the use of a screen reader by a developer; I am not confident that it would preserve this signal. regards, Ted Hardie On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Alfred H=CEnes wrote: > > > > With URN Namespace registration documents, we have the recurring > issue of choosing the appropriate normative language to indicate > requirements imposed by the document itself and those imposed by > external standards/documents for the underlying namespace, and to > distinguish these from the common form of the plain verbs as used > in natural language. > > With the approval of the IESG, RFC 6329 (published in April 2012) > has introduced a new convention (see Section 3 of that RFC), and > I suggest that we liberally adopt this method for our WG documents: > > - RFC 2119 terms (in all capital letters) denote normative document > =A0requirements according to RFC 2119, which MUST be at a protocol > =A0or meta-protocol level and conformance to these terms needs to be > =A0verifiable from external behavior of the protocol entities. > > - The lowercase forms with initial capital: =A0"Must", "Must Not", > =A0"Shall", "Shall Not", "Should", "Should Not", "May", and "Optional" > =A0are to be interpreted as quotations of external normative > =A0requirements posed by other SDOs (in particular, ISO, in our > =A0current cases of bibliographic URN Namespaces). > > - The all-lowercase forms still carry their natural language meaning. > > =A0It is regarded good practice by some folks to avoid these lowercase > =A0forms, but opinions on that advice differ largely. =A0Note that the > =A0former RFC Editor, Bob Braden -- who once, as the editor of STD 3 > =A0(RFCs 1122 and 1123) had introduced the systematical use of these > =A0all-uppercase terms into the Internet Standard document set --, > =A0once stated that the proportion of non-capitalized to capitalized > =A0"must"/"should"/"may" is one kind of quality scale for RFCs. > > It should be recalled that Section 6 of RFC 2119 literally says about > the capitalized forms: > > =A0"Imperatives of the type defined in this memo must be used with care > =A0 and sparingly. =A0In particular, they MUST only be used where it is > =A0 actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has > =A0 potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) =A0For > =A0 example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method > =A0 on implementors where the method is not required for > =A0 interoperability." > > > Kind regards, > =A0Alfred. > > -- > > +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ > | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes =A0 | =A0Alfred Hoenes =A0 Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys= . =A0| > | Gerlinger Strasse 12 =A0 | =A0Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 =A0 =A0= =A0 =A0 | > | D-71254 =A0Ditzingen =A0 =A0 | =A0E-Mail: =A0ah@TR-Sys.de =A0 =A0 =A0 = =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | > +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ > > _______________________________________________ > urn mailing list > urn@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Fri May 18 09:44:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D8221F854B for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 09:44:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.823 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.823 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.146, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cT0vXFLVFn5L for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 09:44:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EF9121F8540 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 09:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbbgo11 with SMTP id go11so2562262lbb.31 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 09:44:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=q2AOhRXz1W7jP96AMKzP/g0BGRJuK8v+Pm62jGw8UJo=; b=KlzUG7Aua41rvwyY2poIh/lOKBcMgZC6QxGgLDJu19E3qpJnA2bwk8BVmrzD92KCf1 f1BFisCec4JJfPZrwmSuB00QKt+9sK0gwihQsNm9GRl+nxUXl4Pw4UtMXpaTP4Piq+el MaeD0DOEyJXJ0bOZg8vOcXa6rfLTGrD/NrHWlEFkea2Ul8HyTrFTrF4PEmGhd57RSxOT kp4shHCNMqgjp8zrdMufYldP+F9shpwalFn9ucLMB1Vqfzri6O9H8zIn9di4SWaMyWfD gTAX8sfNS25OmzAgDFapZzqIOw5at4h0E1gsgLbFS93UbUgKTjF6q+wnwhS5Uu1dVD6v zXjQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.101.105 with SMTP id ff9mr5065906lbb.44.1337359454603; Fri, 18 May 2012 09:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.7.7 with HTTP; Fri, 18 May 2012 09:44:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201205180833.KAA24888@TR-Sys.de> References: <201205180833.KAA24888@TR-Sys.de> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 12:44:14 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: dQZOEv9R1ryoKjLmyz58Fy1qwvs Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alfred_H=F6nes?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [urn] normative language -- a new convention X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 16:44:16 -0000 Alfred, > As the responsible AD, I am at a loss to understand how it's at all appropriate for you to make this suggestion as chair. Please explain specifically where the authority to do that comes from. > With the approval of the IESG, RFC 6329 (published in April 2012) > has introduced a new convention (see Section 3 of that RFC), and > I suggest that we liberally adopt this method for our WG documents: As a participant, I suggest that this is a very bad idea. Using ALL CAPS vs lower case is controversial enough -- see the thread I started the other day on ietf@ietf.org: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73338.html And note that Marshall Eubanks referred this thread to that one this morning. Given that there's already no consensus on using "MUST" and "SHOULD" vs "must" and "should", I would be very hesitant to advocate the widespread addition of "Must" and "Should" with yet different nuances. I urge you not to go there. In any case, I urge anyone who cares about this issue to pursue it on the IETF discussion list, in the thread I linked to above, and not to discuss it here. Barry, Applications Area Director From A.Hoenes@TR-Sys.de Fri May 18 12:39:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D13021F864E for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 12:39:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.26 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XEIgkaKJoVMN for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 12:39:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TR-Sys.de (gateway.tr-sys.de [213.178.172.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B09C21F863E for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 12:39:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ZEUS.TR-Sys.de by w. with ESMTP ($Revision: 1.37.109.26 $/16.3.2) id AA293629876; Fri, 18 May 2012 21:37:57 +0200 Received: (from ah@localhost) by z.TR-Sys.de (8.9.3 (PHNE_25183)/8.7.3) id VAA28021; Fri, 18 May 2012 21:37:55 +0200 (MESZ) From: Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= Message-Id: <201205181937.VAA28021@TR-Sys.de> To: barryleiba@computer.org Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 21:37:54 +0200 (MESZ) In-Reply-To: from Barry Leiba at May "18, " 2012 "12:44:14" pm X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.3 $] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=hp-roman8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [urn] normative language -- a new convention X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 19:39:24 -0000 Barry, let me quickly respond to the main part of your comments and follow up later to other aspects, after catching up with the discussion you are pointing to... > Alfred, > >> > > As the responsible AD, I am at a loss to understand how it's at all > appropriate for you to make this suggestion as chair. Please > explain specifically where the authority to do that comes from. Some time ago, we had some discussion on the underlying topic on the urn list, and it is one of the tasks of a co-chair to point out ways forward in case of controversies; for instance, Section 6.1 "WG Chair" of RFC 2418 says: | The Working Group Chair is concerned with making forward progress | through a fair and open process, and has wide discretion in the | conduct of WG business. [...] So observing a Standards Track RFC published less than 4 weeks ago with an apparently Solomonian method to deal with the topic, which obviously has been accepted by the (previous) IESG, I think that was reason and justification enough to *suggest* this method to the WG as well, assuming consistent, continued support for it in the IESG. You also might have observed that in my original posting, I deliberately obstained from stating a personal preference; I even mentioned diverging opinions. Please note that this was not a *decision*, but a *suggestion* for a way forward (and awaiting feedback from the list): > >> With the approval of the IESG, RFC 6329 (published in April 2012) >> has introduced a new convention (see Section 3 of that RFC), and >> I suggest that we liberally adopt this method for our WG documents: > > As a participant, I suggest that this is a very bad idea. Obviously, opinions vary; at least, the text of RFC 6329 once has found IETF (and IESG) consensus. > Using ALL CAPS vs lower case is controversial enough ... It shouldn't be controversial, given that even RFC 2119 deliberately uses "MUST" and "must" (e.g., in the quote I included in my original posting), and the 'grandfather' of the RFC 2119 style keywords, STD 3, contains, for example, an almost threefold number of instances of "may" over instances of "MAY". > -- see the thread I started the other day on ietf@ietf.org: > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73338.html It once has been explained to me that the phrase "often capitalized" in RFC 2119 refers to the practice in published RFCs, as observed during the development of RFC 2119. I *personally* always understood RFC 2119 in the way you state it: | The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", | "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this | document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119] when they | appear in ALL CAPS. These words may also appear in this document in | lower case as plain English words, absent their normative meanings. I'll happily adopt this boilerplate text now that I know it will be acceptable. Kind regards, Alfred. > > And note that Marshall Eubanks referred this thread to that one > this morning. > > Given that there's already no consensus on using "MUST" and "SHOULD" > vs "must" and "should", I would be very hesitant to advocate the > widespread addition of "Must" and "Should" with yet different nuances. > I urge you not to go there. > > In any case, I urge anyone who cares about this issue to pursue it on > the IETF discussion list, in the thread I linked to above, and not to > discuss it here. > > Barry, Applications Area Director From barryleiba@gmail.com Fri May 18 13:01:32 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 001EF21F8584 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:01:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.783 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.783 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.405, BAYES_05=-1.11, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OYZIe6QP30Dj for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6927421F8582 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:01:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so3762601yen.31 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:01:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=pGroBikwrLU6wHIq5L9rrU9GasGMafhtuXSEFl/4XSg=; b=WNeq6riVcdEiCSbJOCUFbCM2h5W/Mq6p+3IlPB1sOJxe0cYC8kl2VJUoMeFRKtYuBT HKJix16AsmGw1Y4wx7Yrlc1FFwvZGGWQImIRu62KQ2bEb/s+pckSZYe4iMu+kVQvuiZi DMwFoskJlYefJVNbtAowbqp4Wfgo0TwODmG5WGViXh1Uzdi4LquGnjr+Oh1KkMS3mRCS T2jlFgRhtkD7mUvhfgoi1Q6YU/kC9KMbuGyzd+hCB1mJ/f/RP/NtqfOIK+GRWhA5EJKR a+0YNIkvXxOjt+wBi29hslGDb0E0geG5tDTNmn+UnzV0fmg//1woE9QlMgQaUUQW2glv Fpfg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.3.34 with SMTP id 2mr11305305oez.27.1337371287851; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:01:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.60.10.68 with HTTP; Fri, 18 May 2012 13:01:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201205181937.VAA28021@TR-Sys.de> References: <201205181937.VAA28021@TR-Sys.de> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 16:01:27 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: an4VRgOH0TTGWrOBFuloFA9ZSE8 Message-ID: From: Barry Leiba To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alfred_H=F6nes?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [urn] normative language -- a new convention X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 20:01:32 -0000 >>> >> >> As the responsible AD, I am at a loss to understand how it's at all >> appropriate for you to make this suggestion as chair. =A0Please >> explain specifically where the authority to do that comes from. ... > So observing a Standards Track RFC published less than 4 weeks ago > with an apparently Solomonian method to deal with the topic, which > obviously has been accepted by the (previous) IESG, I think that was > reason and justification enough to *suggest* this method to the WG > as well, assuming consistent, continued support for it in the IESG. > You also might have observed that in my original posting, > I deliberately obstained from stating a personal preference; > I even mentioned diverging opinions. OK. The reason that caught my attention is that many IETF participants aren't sure of the role of the chair, and the limitations of chairs' (and ADs') control. When one explicitly says that one is speaking as a chair, one should have a good reason to (declaring consensus, moderating discussion, doing process management, and so on). There's no reason to speak ex-cathedra when one's just informing the working group of something that might interest them, and I think chairs should be careful to avoid confusing things by saying they're acting as chair when they don't need to. > Please note that this was not a *decision*, but a *suggestion* for > a way forward (and awaiting feedback from the list): Exactly the reason that "as a participant" is enough. >>> With the approval of the IESG, RFC 6329 (published in April 2012) >>> has introduced a new convention (see Section 3 of that RFC), and >>> I suggest that we liberally adopt this method for our WG documents: >> >> As a participant, I suggest that this is a very bad idea. > > Obviously, opinions vary; at least, the text of RFC 6329 once has > found IETF (and IESG) consensus. ...etc.. As I said, I won't be discussing that part further on this list. The discussion continues on the IETF discussion list. Barry From stpeter@stpeter.im Mon May 21 11:53:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C5C21F852A for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 11:53:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v+0ki6sSgE9n for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 11:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 539F421F84DE for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 11:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [64.101.72.115] (unknown [64.101.72.115]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 725514005A; Mon, 21 May 2012 13:09:55 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4FBA8F42.1010605@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 12:53:54 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?QWxmcmVkIO+/vQ==?= References: <201205180832.KAA24855@TR-Sys.de> In-Reply-To: <201205180832.KAA24855@TR-Sys.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: urn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [urn] IETF 83 (Paris) - Minutes of URNbis session - please check X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 18:53:57 -0000 On 5/18/12 2:32 AM, Alfred � wrote: > The working group meeting closed with a discussion on the involvement in > the work. Peter Saint-Andre expressed some concern about the > involvement in the discussions and the need to have more people active > on the mailing list. Andy Newton suggested the possibility use internet > meetings to achieve this. I think "internet meetings" should be "interim meetings". Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/