# Re: Action Items

Erik Huizer (Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl)
Wed, 26 Jan 1994 10:01:22 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Action Items"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Action Items"
- In reply to: Larry Masinter: "Re: Action Items"

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: Action Items

    In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 25 Jan 1994 22:20:23 -0800. <94Jan25.222023pst.2735@golden.parc.xerox.com>

    Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 10:01:22 +0100

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

    Message-Id: <"survis.sur.057:26.00.94.09.01.25"@surfnet.nl>

Well I'm glad to see that URI is still alive. I was just about to
start kicking around to see if somebody was still breathing.

If we look at the charter below you can see that URI is way behind
schedule. And though some people don't like the pressure I put on this
group to finnish it's work, I will ignore that and start putting
pressure. Remember I may not be there anymore to pressurise after
March, so I want you guys and girls to leave me a nice farewell
present in the form of some finished work.

You have to realise that although I want you to take enough time to
get the right solution, the pressure is high. People all over the
Internet are developing software and protocols (e.g. WPS) that is
using URLs. And as you know I don't like arguments that run: "We
implemented this so you cannot change the URL spec".

What I want from the chairs, soon, is a list of outstanding issues
like the ones Larry mentions in his mail. Once this is ready
(preferably this weekend) we start discussing these issues on the list.

I also want a short writeup
of technical arguments that support the inclusion of the url: prefix
as has been decided in Houston. Larry has asked for that repeatedly,
and he is not the only one anymore. Several people have asked me for
the argumentation.

Ones I have the outstanding issues and the prefix argumentation, and
while you are discussing the final bits of URL, I will take the
existing docs and have a panel from outside of the WG review them.
This to avoid problems later on during submission to IESG. To many
protocols will be dependend on URLs so I want a broad review and
acceptance. If possible I want to avoid a big fuss during the last
call period.

Thirdly the URN work should progress, but Larry and Karen seem to be
pulling that.

Fourth, I need a recvised charter.

For the charter I see the following timelines:

Jan 94 list or outstanding URL issues
Feb 94 finnish URL/URN requirements document
March 94 URL doc ready to be submitted
March 94 URN draft published
Seattle URN discussion
Seattle URC requirements discussion
May 94 URN finished and submitted
May 94 URC draft

Erik

- Next message: Peter Deutsch: "Re: Action Items"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: Action Items"
- In reply to: Larry Masinter: "Re: Action Items"