# IETF work and UR*

Erik Huizer (Erik.Huizer@surfnet.nl)
Tue, 19 Oct 93 12:46:04 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Kevin Altis: "finalize URLs, wait on UR*"
- Previous message: Alan Emtage: "Re: FAQ? (was Johns list of points)"
- In reply to: Kevin Gamiel: "Re: URN: wrapper and URLs"
- Next in thread: Alan Emtage: "Re: IETF work and UR*"
- Maybe reply: Alan Emtage: "Re: IETF work and UR*"
- Maybe reply: Chris Weider: "Re: IETF work and UR*"
- Maybe reply: Alan Emtage: "Re: IETF work and UR*"
- Maybe reply: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: IETF work and UR*"

    Message-Id: <9310191146.AA14349@survival.surfnet.nl>

    To: Kevin Gamiel <kgamiel@vinca.cnidr.org>

    Subject: IETF work and UR*

    In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 19 Oct 93 01:29:45 -0400. <Pine.3.05.9310190144.A11432-b100000@vinca.cnidr.org>

    Date: Tue, 19 Oct 93 12:46:04 +0100

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

I have been waiting for a clue like this to jump in.

> Policy request! Policy
> Request! Is a vote by physical attendants to URI meeting in Houston all
> that is needed to nail down this issue one way or the other?

The IETF is an open standards process that works by concensus. Concensus on
the mailing list rather than in a meeting where attendance is rather
haphazard. Meetings are usefull to help get consensus, they are not always a
guarantee of concensus. Therefore I am not (yet) buying Tim's argument of
the 29:1 vote in Amsterdam. First of all voting is not necessarily concensus
(although with 29:1 it seems to come close :-), second the last few days and
over 200 mails have convinced me that there is no concensus.

As an Area Director for Applications Area I will thus be very hesitant to
accept the latest URL draft as an RFC submission.

It is important ( in my view even essential to the succes of an Integrated
Information Architecture for the Internet) that we get the URL/URN stuff
right. And we wont get multiple chances. To get it right we need something
that everyone can live with. I mean all the implementors, service providers
and user support people on the uri-list. I do not necessarily mean that
everyone should agree that the solution is optimal, that will not be
achieved evidently, however I feel that concensus can be reached on
something that is acceptable to all of us.

Threats like : " we have an instealled base, so we won't support this" are
perpendicular to an open standards process and are undermingin for
concensus. Parties that argue like that have no wish to get an open standard
but merely a wish to further their own inventions. This will NOT lead to an
integrated information Architecture. In an open standards process as the
IETF, accepting that an NIH idea might have merit is the basis of concensus.

Finally I'd like to remark that on top of all this we have another boundary
condition for this WG (it is not in the USV area for nothing): The user.

One of the UR* will be visible to the user (which one depends on your
position in the discussions :-). The user wants something as understandable
as possible, easy to remind and easy to pass on to a friend/colleage.

So to get back to the question:
The policy is:
- get concensus in the URI WG (not per se in a physical meeting)
- submit the paper to the ADs (Joyce, John and me)
- The ADs will do a review (together with some people outside of URI)
- We will keep eye on Internet Architecture aspects, overlap with other
protocols, user perspective.
- After this iteration the paper will be put forward to the IESG.
- Then a last call is issued, for anyone to comment on the paper and the
process that lead to it's current contents.
- If no problems then it goes to the RFC-editor.

If anyone does not agree with any part of the process, the complaint
hierarchy is:
1 - WG-chair, if that does not rsolve it:
2- AD if that does not resolve...
3- IESG if....
4- IAB if.....
5- ISOC ombudsman

Erik

- Next message: Kevin Altis: "finalize URLs, wait on UR*"
- Previous message: Alan Emtage: "Re: FAQ? (was Johns list of points)"
- In reply to: Kevin Gamiel: "Re: URN: wrapper and URLs"
- Next in thread: Alan Emtage: "Re: IETF work and UR*"
- Maybe reply: Alan Emtage: "Re: IETF work and UR*"
- Maybe reply: Chris Weider: "Re: IETF work and UR*"
- Maybe reply: Alan Emtage: "Re: IETF work and UR*"
- Maybe reply: Tim Berners-Lee: "Re: IETF work and UR*"