Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-irtf-idrm-handle-system-03.txt (fwd)

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

works for me

---
>From harald@alvestrand.no  Fri Jan 24 05:59:04 2003
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:58:54 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
To: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>, paf@cisco.com
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-irtf-idrm-handle-system-03.txt
 (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <200301231408.h0NE8XYA027295@newdev.harvard.edu>
References:  <200301231408.h0NE8XYA027295@newdev.harvard.edu>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Suggested changes to grammar only (I think):

--On torsdag, januar 23, 2003 09:08:33 -0500 Scott Bradner 
<sob@harvard.edu> wrote:

> IESG Note:
>
> IETF have discussed the Handle system in the realm of URI related
> working groups. IESG want to point out that there is not IETF consensus
> on the current design of the Handle system, and where it fits in the
> IETF architecture. IESG is of the view that that the Handle system
> should be able to, with very small changes, fit in the IETF
> architecture as a URN namespace (see RFC's 2276, 3305 and 3406).

Alternate text:

The Handle system has been discussed in the IETF in the working groups 
dealing with URIs. The IESG wants to point out that there is no IETF 
consensus on the current design on the Handle system, and no IETF consensus 
on where it fits in the IETF URI architecture. The IESG thinks that with 
very small changes, the Handle system could fit within the IETF URI 
architecture as an URN namespace as defined in RFCs 2276, 3305 and 3406.

Note: this may mean some meaning changes

- talking about the IETF URI architecture, not the IETF architecture
- breaking up the "no consensus" explicitly into two points

I think none of these change the meaning, but want to be sure.

                  Harald