Date: Thu, 22 Sep 94 16:50:14 JST
From: francis@cactus.slab.ntt.jp (Paul Francis)
Message-Id: <9409220750.AA18889@cactus.slab.ntt.jp>
To: nl@osf.org, rv@deins.Informatik.Uni-Dortmund.DE
Subject: Re: Last Call: URL to Proposed and URN- and IRL-Reqs to Informational
> ... I herewith want you to consider the
> delay of the requested publication of the
>
> "Requirements for Uniform Resource Names"
> <draft-ietf-uri-urn-req-00.txt>
>
> draft document as an Informational RFC (currently scheduled for 9/26).
> In analyzing your work and after talking to Karen Sollins and other
> experts, I come to the conclusion that there is a fair amount of overlap
> in both of our specifications and goals as well as elements in the
> specifications that can greatly complement each other.
> In order to guarantee that both of our specifications lead
> into the same direction, assure cohesiveness, and provide for rapid and
> broad acceptance, I view it as essential and urgent that both of us get
> together to identify and resolve the issues.
While I can't speak in detail about this particular issue, I want to
encourage the IESG/active URI participants to seriously consider limiting
the scope of the URI requirements document to whatever it is now
(if these means changing the sentence that says that a goal is to
accomodate all possible naming schemes, then so be it).
In my observation, trying to be all things to all protocols results in
a long-delayed and heavyweight protocol that is likely in the end to
be replaced by some lightweight newcomer. I am already generally
distressed at the slow pace of UR* work in general, and would rather
see the community narrow its scope and speed its progress (if indeed
speed would be the result) than expand its scope and bog things down
even further.
PF