# Re: generic IESG comments

Dave Crocker (dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu)
Fri, 4 Nov 1994 07:25:02 -0800

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Ronald E. Daniel: "Re: x-uri draft"
- Previous message: Erik Huizer: "Re: generic IESG comments"
- Maybe in reply to: Erik Huizer: "generic IESG comments"
- Next in thread: Erik Huizer: "Re: generic IESG comments"
- Reply: Erik Huizer: "Re: generic IESG comments"

    Message-Id: <v03000503aadfff0a8084@[128.102.17.23]>

    Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 07:25:02 -0800

    To: "Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV)" <Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl>

    From: dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu (Dave Crocker)

    Subject: Re: generic IESG comments

At 12:34 AM 11/4/94, Erik Huizer (SURFnet BV) wrote:
>cover them. Resolution of the issues will be a precondition for moving of
>the standards-track documents to Draft Standard.

Erik,

It appears that the IESG is approving publication of documents which the
IESG deems incomplete.

This is in direct conflict with the rules for approval of Proposed Standard
documents. Requirement that a spec be 'finished later' is explicitly not
allowed, only the correction of errors that are discovered or the cleanup
of writing deficiencies.

In particular, modification of the base technology to any significant
extent is required to re-set the clock on a standards track specification,
re-entering it as a new Proposed standard. I.e., it may not advance to
Draft.

Please explain this apparent deviation from long- and well-established IETF
practise.

Thanks.

Dave

p.s. It also seems that the scaling & replication, and the protocol
dependence concerns are best addressed (pun...) by URNs and not URLs. URLs
-- in their current form and with the major deficiencies you cite -- have
already proved massively useful. There is long IETF history of blessing
accepted practise, no matter how much better one might wish that practise.
Worse, the concerns you cite have been present for quite some time and
clearly are not proving to be easily remedied. It therefore is unlikely
that some magic wand is going to solve them in the next 6 months.

To re-state the URL/URN issue, I note that the domain name lookup service
has the feature you cite but that IP addresses do not. URLs are roughly
equivalent to URLs. URNs should be able to map to multiple machine
instantiations and multiple protocol accesses. URLs should not.

d/

--------------------
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg Consulting Phone: +1 408 246 8253
675 Spruce Dr. Fax: +1 408 249 6205
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Email: dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu

- Next message: Ronald E. Daniel: "Re: x-uri draft"
- Previous message: Erik Huizer: "Re: generic IESG comments"
- Maybe in reply to: Erik Huizer: "generic IESG comments"
- Next in thread: Erik Huizer: "Re: generic IESG comments"
- Reply: Erik Huizer: "Re: generic IESG comments"