IRI agenda items for IETF 84

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

IRI agenda items for IETF 84

Peter Saint-Andre-2
If you have suggestions for topics to cover during the IRI WG session at
IETF 84, please send them to the list so that Chris and I can formulate
an agenda.

Thanks!

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IRI agenda items for IETF 84

Peter Saint-Andre-2
Does anyone have agenda requests? If not, there might not be a need to
hold a meeting.

On 6/29/12 1:35 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> If you have suggestions for topics to cover during the IRI WG session at
> IETF 84, please send them to the list so that Chris and I can formulate
> an agenda.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Peter
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IRI agenda items for IETF 84

John C Klensin


--On Monday, July 09, 2012 09:39 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Does anyone have agenda requests? If not, there might not be a
> need to hold a meeting.

Peter,

If we are having a meeting, I'd like to have time to discuss the
fork in the road among:

(1) draft-ietf-iri-3987bis and the associated documents.

(2) Approaches such as that represented by draft-klensin-iri-sri

(3) An update to 3987 that preserves the "not a protocol
identifier" and "every valid URI is a valid IRI" principles.  As
far as I know, no one is arguing for this, but it is still a
possibility.

(4) Giving up, deprecating/obsoleting 3987, and moving on.


I note that draft-ietf-iri-comparison seems intimately tied to
(1).  The intent behind (2) includes standardizing information
sufficiently that a simple XML structured comparison (i.e.,
ignoring irrelevant white space) should suffice without
identifier- or scheme-specific comparison rules.
draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines would probably still be helpful,
but some of the issues it addresses appear to me to disappear.

It is not clear to me whether that discussion can more
efficiently be held in Vancouver, by email, or by some other
method.  I'll leave that question in your hands.

best,
   john


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IRI agenda items for IETF 84

Martin J. Dürst
In reply to this post by Peter Saint-Andre-2
Hello Peter,

On 2012/07/10 0:39, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Does anyone have agenda requests? If not, there might not be a need to
> hold a meeting.

I'm currently working on an update of draft-ietf-iri-3987bis. That work
will be over by next Monday. As a result of that, some agenda items may
come up.

Given that this time, neither of the chairs and (almost?) no editors
will be there, it will be rather difficult to hold a meeting, but if we
have actual agenda items (I'm not sure if the chairs want to consider
John's new draft an agenda item or a filler), we could give it a try.

Regards,   Martin.


> On 6/29/12 1:35 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> If you have suggestions for topics to cover during the IRI WG session at
>> IETF 84, please send them to the list so that Chris and I can formulate
>> an agenda.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: IRI agenda items for IETF 84

Dave Thaler-2
I'll be in Vancouver but IRI is scheduled opposite Behave,
which I chair.

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 10:25 PM
> To: Peter Saint-Andre
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: IRI agenda items for IETF 84
>
> Hello Peter,
>
> On 2012/07/10 0:39, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > Does anyone have agenda requests? If not, there might not be a need to
> > hold a meeting.
>
> I'm currently working on an update of draft-ietf-iri-3987bis. That work will be
> over by next Monday. As a result of that, some agenda items may come up.
>
> Given that this time, neither of the chairs and (almost?) no editors will be
> there, it will be rather difficult to hold a meeting, but if we have actual
> agenda items (I'm not sure if the chairs want to consider John's new draft an
> agenda item or a filler), we could give it a try.
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>
>
> > On 6/29/12 1:35 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >> If you have suggestions for topics to cover during the IRI WG session
> >> at IETF 84, please send them to the list so that Chris and I can
> >> formulate an agenda.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Peter
> >>
> >
> >
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IRI agenda items for IETF 84

Martin J. Dürst
In reply to this post by John C Klensin
Hello John,

Sorry I'm behind with my replies.

On 2012/07/10 1:39, John C Klensin wrote:

> If we are having a meeting, I'd like to have time to discuss the
> fork in the road among:
>
> (1) draft-ietf-iri-3987bis and the associated documents.
>
> (2) Approaches such as that represented by draft-klensin-iri-sri

I'll comment on this separately, following up to Dave's crucial comment.

> (3) An update to 3987 that preserves the "not a protocol
> identifier" and "every valid URI is a valid IRI" principles.  As
> far as I know, no one is arguing for this, but it is still a
> possibility.

"Preserving the 'not a protocol identifier'" isn't a possibility, for
the simple reason that IRIs are defined as protocol elements already.
The first line of the abstract of RFC 3987 says that, it's difficult to
miss!

It would really help if you could actually read the documents you are
trying to criticize, or at least their abstract, or at the very least
the first line of the abstract, so I don't have to repeat this again. I
already told you so in a mail just a few days ago.

> (4) Giving up, deprecating/obsoleting 3987, and moving on.

There are other specs that use RFC 3987, so deprecating it doesn't look
like much of an option.

> I note that draft-ietf-iri-comparison seems intimately tied to
> (1).  The intent behind (2) includes standardizing information
> sufficiently that a simple XML structured comparison (i.e.,
> ignoring irrelevant white space) should suffice without
> identifier- or scheme-specific comparison rules.
> draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines would probably still be helpful,
> but some of the issues it addresses appear to me to disappear.
>
> It is not clear to me whether that discussion can more
> efficiently be held in Vancouver, by email, or by some other
> method.  I'll leave that question in your hands.

I hope we can make a lot of progress on what should happen to SRIs
before Vancouver.

Regards,   Martin.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: IRI agenda items for IETF 84

Peter Saint-Andre-2
In reply to this post by Dave Thaler-2
That's unfortunate, as is the fact that the chairs and some of the
document editors won't be able to participate in person. I am starting
to doubt whether we can hold a productive meeting at IETF 84 (e.g., I
have never chaired a meeting remotely).

However, even aside from the large topic of whether IRIs are truly
needed or useful (see John's SRI proposal [1] and recent threads), it's
also true that we are far behind on our milestones and we need to either
finish this work or decide not to complete it. In fact we don't have
many open issues on 3987bis and 4395bis [2], but the editors haven't had
much time to complete the work. The other documents have received even
less attention (other than a short burst of activity on the bidi document).

I feel that we need to set a hard deadline for completion of at least
3987bis and 4395bis (say, starting the Working Group Last Call before
the end of September). If we cannot achieve that, then I would
reluctantly concede that we need to close the WG rather than keep it on
life support any longer.

Peter, as co-chair

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-klensin-iri-sri/

[2] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/report/1

On 7/10/12 12:20 AM, Dave Thaler wrote:

> I'll be in Vancouver but IRI is scheduled opposite Behave,
> which I chair.
>
> -Dave
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 10:25 PM
>> To: Peter Saint-Andre
>> Cc: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: IRI agenda items for IETF 84
>>
>> Hello Peter,
>>
>> On 2012/07/10 0:39, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> Does anyone have agenda requests? If not, there might not be a need to
>>> hold a meeting.
>>
>> I'm currently working on an update of draft-ietf-iri-3987bis. That work will be
>> over by next Monday. As a result of that, some agenda items may come up.
>>
>> Given that this time, neither of the chairs and (almost?) no editors will be
>> there, it will be rather difficult to hold a meeting, but if we have actual
>> agenda items (I'm not sure if the chairs want to consider John's new draft an
>> agenda item or a filler), we could give it a try.
>>
>> Regards,   Martin.
>>
>>
>>> On 6/29/12 1:35 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> If you have suggestions for topics to cover during the IRI WG session
>>>> at IETF 84, please send them to the list so that Chris and I can
>>>> formulate an agenda.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Peter