gmane.ietf.general

RFC 2141 - URN Syntax

Hi,

I was looking at <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2141> (URN syntax) and 
noticed that it's only a proposed standard. There do not seem to be any 
errata recorded (<http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2141>).

Would there be any objections if I tried to update the stuff that needs 
to be updated (references, ABNF), and submit as Draft Standard?

BR, Julian

headers

Alexey Melnikov | 6 Oct 14:44

Re: RFC 2141 - URN Syntax

Julian Reschke wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I was looking at <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2141> (URN syntax) and 
> noticed that it's only a proposed standard. There do not seem to be 
> any errata recorded 
> (<http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2141>).
>
> Would there be any objections if I tried to update the stuff that 
> needs to be updated (references, ABNF), and submit as Draft Standard?

This seems sensible.
Have you tried to ping the original author?

headers

Julian Reschke | 6 Oct 14:55

Re: RFC 2141 - URN Syntax

Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>> I was looking at <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2141> (URN syntax) and 
>> noticed that it's only a proposed standard. There do not seem to be 
>> any errata recorded 
>> (<http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2141>).
>>
>> Would there be any objections if I tried to update the stuff that 
>> needs to be updated (references, ABNF), and submit as Draft Standard?
> 
> This seems sensible.
> Have you tried to ping the original author?

Yes, but at the same time I wrote the mail above.

BR, Julian

headers

| 6 Oct 14:54

Re: RFC 2141 - URN Syntax

On Monday 06 October 2008 15:31:07 ext Julian Reschke, you wrote:
> Would there be any objections if I tried to update the stuff that needs
> to be updated (references, ABNF), and submit as Draft Standard?

As far as I know, there is no need to resubmit a new version of the document 
to advance its standard status. See RFC2026. What matters is, it's in 
Standards Tracks in the first place.

Unless there are non-editorial corrections/updates to be made, this looks like 
a waste of time to me.

--

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
Maemo Software, Nokia Devices R&D

headers

Julian Reschke | 6 Oct 15:10

Re: RFC 2141 - URN Syntax

Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> On Monday 06 October 2008 15:31:07 ext Julian Reschke, you wrote:
>> Would there be any objections if I tried to update the stuff that needs
>> to be updated (references, ABNF), and submit as Draft Standard?
> 
> As far as I know, there is no need to resubmit a new version of the document 
> to advance its standard status. See RFC2026. What matters is, it's in 
> Standards Tracks in the first place.
> 
> Unless there are non-editorial corrections/updates to be made, this looks like 
> a waste of time to me.

Well, it has normative references to things that have been obsoleted 
since and it doesn't use ABNF, so I *do* think it needs a minor freshup.

BR, Julian

headers

Ted Hardie | 6 Oct 17:39

Re: RFC 2141 - URN Syntax

At 6:10 AM -0700 10/6/08, Julian Reschke wrote:
>Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> On Monday 06 October 2008 15:31:07 ext Julian Reschke, you wrote:
>>> Would there be any objections if I tried to update the stuff that needs
>>> to be updated (references, ABNF), and submit as Draft Standard?
>>
>> As far as I know, there is no need to resubmit a new version of the document
>> to advance its standard status. See RFC2026. What matters is, it's in
>> Standards Tracks in the first place.
>>
>> Unless there are non-editorial corrections/updates to be made, this looks like
>> a waste of time to me.
>
>Well, it has normative references to things that have been obsoleted
>since and it doesn't use ABNF, so I *do* think it needs a minor freshup.
>
>BR, Julian
>

Having reviewed a lot of URN nid requests over the years, I can't say
I've ever seen a syntax error that derives from 2141 using something other
than ABNF (which is *not* required, simply available).  Following the
chains to the current version of the URI syntax etc. is also not that hard,
so I don't see the need for a change here.  If you would like to see it
progress, I am sure I can help you find the requisite interoperable
implementations to report upon, but, honestly, it seems to be working
fine as-is.
			regards,
				Ted

(Continue reading)

headers

Leslie Daigle | 7 Oct 09:54

Re: RFC 2141 - URN Syntax

+1

Leslie.

Ted Hardie wrote:
> At 6:10 AM -0700 10/6/08, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>>> On Monday 06 October 2008 15:31:07 ext Julian Reschke, you wrote:
>>>> Would there be any objections if I tried to update the stuff that needs
>>>> to be updated (references, ABNF), and submit as Draft Standard?
>>> As far as I know, there is no need to resubmit a new version of the document
>>> to advance its standard status. See RFC2026. What matters is, it's in
>>> Standards Tracks in the first place.
>>>
>>> Unless there are non-editorial corrections/updates to be made, this looks like
>>> a waste of time to me.
>> Well, it has normative references to things that have been obsoleted
>> since and it doesn't use ABNF, so I *do* think it needs a minor freshup.
>>
>> BR, Julian
>>
> 
> Having reviewed a lot of URN nid requests over the years, I can't say
> I've ever seen a syntax error that derives from 2141 using something other
> than ABNF (which is *not* required, simply available).  Following the
> chains to the current version of the URI syntax etc. is also not that hard,
> so I don't see the need for a change here.  If you would like to see it
> progress, I am sure I can help you find the requisite interoperable
> implementations to report upon, but, honestly, it seems to be working
> fine as-is.

(Continue reading)