Dan's draft essentially asks that we ensure our registries
create dereferencable identifiers, using schemes like
http: and ftp:. I'd like to say in the meeting that recent
work has focused on creating urn style identifiers,
as the IETF puts a premium on permanence for this
type of work. I'd then point to the xmlns work, which
creates identifers like:
urn:ietf:params:xml:<class>:<id>
and that we see urn:ietf:params: as a reasonably
extensible mechanism for protocol parameters
with the similar namespace for rfcs set up by
2468. If we need to set up dereferencing mechanisms
for these, I suspect we should be eating our own
dog food in regards to DDDS (which are now
RFCs).
Ted
At 11:16 AM -0700 10/02/2003, Michelle S. Cotton wrote:
Leslie,
I don't remember discussing this with Ned in much detail.
However, I would like to.
I'm wondering how this affects how we name and create registries
now. We are working on automation techniques and I'm not sure
if that will be affected either. This needs a broader discussion,
internally here as well as with IAB and IESG.
I'm leaving for vacation tomorrow. When I get back, I'll schedule
a meeting with Ned to discuss this in detail.
Is this a sufficient plan for you? I don't want to rush into
anything with this.
Let me know.
Thank you,
Michelle
-----Original Message-----
From: iesg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Leslie Daigle
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:18 AM
To: iab@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org
Cc: IANA
Subject: upcoming w3c coordination agenda item
From the minutes of the IETF-W3C coordination call of June,
http://www.w3.org/2003/03/13-ietf-w3c.html
there is an action item to follow up with IANA re. naming of (items
in)
registries. WE'll be reviewing the status of that action item
on the next call -- Tuesday of next week.
There is a specific proposal ([0]), and Ned had the action item to
follow up with IANA. I dropped a note to Ned to find out what the
status of things is, but I believe he's probably got much more
important
things on his mind. He won't be on the call. However, since this
item
has been trailing for quite a while, I'd like to have something more
concrete to say on Tuesday's call.
I don't think the proposal in [0] is reasonable, because I don't
share the W3C's perspective that it's reasonable to declare that
you'll never change your domain name or file organization. Or,
do we have to live with that? Comments?
Leslie.
[0]
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-connolly-w3c-accessible-
registries-00.txt
P.S.: Explicitly copying IANA, even though IANA is on IESG list,
because I'd specifically like to hear her input...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
Yours to discover."
-- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
leslie@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------