Fwd: Handle System RFC Note

[hardie@qualcomm.com]

FYI.
		Ted

> X-Sender: rkahn@newcnri.cnri.reston.va.us
> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:18:59 -0400
> To: braden@isi.edu
> From: Robert Kahn <rkahn@cnri.reston.va.us>
> Subject: Fwd: Handle System RFC Note
> Cc: thardie@qualcomm.com, ssun@cnri.reston.va.us, llannom@cnri.reston.va.us,
>    bboesch@cnri.reston.va.us, kahn@cnri.reston.va.us
>
> Bob,
>
> Having pushed a bit harder into the matter, I am now becoming aware 
> that this issue is more basic and fundamental than I had thought. I 
> think I need to begin to weigh into the process personally and I 
> plan to do so as time and circumstances permit. I appreciate your 
> time and attention to the matter, and the interest of the IESG in 
> trying to find a polite way to deal with their concerns. I believe 
> this is not the right vehicle to have this discussion and withdraw 
> my objection. I'll plan to deal with it elsewhere.
>
> You may use the entire IESG statement as crafted. My understanding 
> is that it reads as follows:
>
> "Several groups within the IETF and IRTF have discussed the Handle
> System and its relationship to existing systems of identifiers. The IESG
> wishes to point out that these discussions have not resulted in IETF
> consensus on the described Handle System nor on how it might fit into the
> IETF architecture for identifiers. Though there has been discussion of
> handles as a form of URI, specifically as a URN, these documents describe an
> alternate view of how namespaces and identifiers might work on the
> Internet."
>
> Thanks for all your help.
>
> bob
>
> > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 01:56:10 -0400
> > To: ssun@cnri.reston.va.us
> > From: Robert Kahn <rkahn@cnri.reston.va.us>
> > Subject: Handle System RFC Note
> > Cc: kahn, thardie@qualcomm.com, braden@isi.edu
> >
> > Sam,
> >
> > Having seen the traffic on this subject, I now understand that 
> > inclusion of a message in the RFC is important to the IESG and even 
> > though they don't usually append anything to informational RFCs, 
> > they feel the need to do so here. I'm prepared to accept that view 
> > for the present.
> >
> > However, I would like to suggest a minor compromise that may also 
> > be acceptable to move this forward. Namely, that the first two 
> > sentences of the note be added but the last sentence of the note be 
> > deleted. CNRI does not believe that the Handle System describes an 
> > alternate view of how namespaces and identifiers might work on the 
> > Internet. Indeed, the Handle System can support resolution for a 
> > broad class of identifier systems including those characterized 
> > within the IETF as URIs, URNs or even URLs. I would argue that is a 
> > broader view, not an alternate one.
> >
> > I have even more trouble in a sense with the notion that there is 
> > an IETF architecture for identifiers, but this is a semantic 
> > concern for me and more specifically a reflection about what is an 
> > architecture and what is not.  If the IESG thinks there is one, 
> > that's probably all that counts. And since this is their statement 
> > about what they think, it has their credibility behind it. And so 
> > I'm prepared to accept it.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Bob