Alfred Hönes | 18 May 10:32 2012
Picon

IETF 83 (Paris) - Minutes of URNbis session - please check

<speaking as a co-chair>

It has been somehow missed to bring to your attention:

The (draft) Minutes of the URNbis session at the IETF 83 meeting
in Paris are available at
  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-urnbis.txt

Thanks to Bengt Neiss for taking these minutes!

For convenience, I have copied the entire text below.

Please check and provide feedback to help fill out a few details.

Kind regards
  Alfred.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

URNBIS Working Group
Monday, March 26, 2012 1510-1610
Chairs: Andrew (Andy) Newton
Applications Area Advisor: Peter Saint-Andre
Scribe: Bengt Neiss

1. Agenda Bashing

The published agenda was presented. The item "URNS, Registries & W3C"
were removed from the agenda due to the absence of Larry Masinter.
There were no objections to the modified agenda and the agenda
(Continue reading)

Alfred Hönes | 18 May 10:33 2012
Picon

normative language -- a new convention

<speaking both as an individual and as a co-chair>

With URN Namespace registration documents, we have the recurring
issue of choosing the appropriate normative language to indicate
requirements imposed by the document itself and those imposed by
external standards/documents for the underlying namespace, and to
distinguish these from the common form of the plain verbs as used
in natural language.

With the approval of the IESG, RFC 6329 (published in April 2012)
has introduced a new convention (see Section 3 of that RFC), and
I suggest that we liberally adopt this method for our WG documents:

- RFC 2119 terms (in all capital letters) denote normative document
  requirements according to RFC 2119, which MUST be at a protocol
  or meta-protocol level and conformance to these terms needs to be
  verifiable from external behavior of the protocol entities.

- The lowercase forms with initial capital:  "Must", "Must Not",
  "Shall", "Shall Not", "Should", "Should Not", "May", and "Optional"
  are to be interpreted as quotations of external normative
  requirements posed by other SDOs (in particular, ISO, in our
  current cases of bibliographic URN Namespaces).

- The all-lowercase forms still carry their natural language meaning.

  It is regarded good practice by some folks to avoid these lowercase
  forms, but opinions on that advice differ largely.  Note that the
  former RFC Editor, Bob Braden -- who once, as the editor of STD 3
  (RFCs 1122 and 1123) had introduced the systematical use of these
(Continue reading)

Ted Hardie | 18 May 17:33 2012
Picon

Re: normative language -- a new convention

Howdy,

I am quite concerned about the convention proposed.  Using case to
distinguish the origin of a requirement seems to me a very fragile
method compared to simply quoting the appropriate standard in its
existing language.  Consider, for example, the use of a screen reader
by a developer; I am not confident that it would preserve this signal.

regards,

Ted Hardie

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Alfred HÎnes <ah <at> tr-sys.de> wrote:
> <speaking both as an individual and as a co-chair>
>
>
> With URN Namespace registration documents, we have the recurring
> issue of choosing the appropriate normative language to indicate
> requirements imposed by the document itself and those imposed by
> external standards/documents for the underlying namespace, and to
> distinguish these from the common form of the plain verbs as used
> in natural language.
>
> With the approval of the IESG, RFC 6329 (published in April 2012)
> has introduced a new convention (see Section 3 of that RFC), and
> I suggest that we liberally adopt this method for our WG documents:
>
> - RFC 2119 terms (in all capital letters) denote normative document
>  requirements according to RFC 2119, which MUST be at a protocol
>  or meta-protocol level and conformance to these terms needs to be
(Continue reading)

Barry Leiba | 18 May 18:44 2012
Picon

Re: normative language -- a new convention

Alfred,

> <speaking both as an individual and as a co-chair>

As the responsible AD, I am at a loss to understand how it's at all
appropriate for you to make this suggestion as chair.  Please explain
specifically where the authority to do that comes from.

> With the approval of the IESG, RFC 6329 (published in April 2012)
> has introduced a new convention (see Section 3 of that RFC), and
> I suggest that we liberally adopt this method for our WG documents:

As a participant, I suggest that this is a very bad idea.  Using ALL
CAPS vs lower case is controversial enough -- see the thread I started
the other day on ietf <at> ietf.org:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg73338.html

And note that Marshall Eubanks referred this thread to that one this morning.

Given that there's already no consensus on using "MUST" and "SHOULD"
vs "must" and "should", I would be very hesitant to advocate the
widespread addition of "Must" and "Should" with yet different nuances.
 I urge you not to go there.

In any case, I urge anyone who cares about this issue to pursue it on
the IETF discussion list, in the thread I linked to above, and not to
discuss it here.

Barry, Applications Area Director
(Continue reading)

Alfred Hönes | 18 May 21:37 2012
Picon

Re: normative language -- a new convention

Barry,

let me quickly respond to the main part of your comments and
follow up later to other aspects, after catching up with the
discussion you are pointing to...

> Alfred,
>
>> <speaking both as an individual and as a co-chair>
>
> As the responsible AD, I am at a loss to understand how it's at all
> appropriate for you to make this suggestion as chair.  Please
> explain specifically where the authority to do that comes from.

Some time ago, we had some discussion on the underlying topic on the
urn list, and it is one of the tasks of a co-chair to point out ways
forward in case of controversies; for instance, Section 6.1 "WG Chair"
of RFC 2418 says:

|  The Working Group Chair is concerned with making forward progress
|  through a fair and open process, and has wide discretion in the
|  conduct of WG business.  [...]

So observing a Standards Track RFC published less than 4 weeks ago
with an apparently Solomonian method to deal with the topic, which
obviously has been accepted by the (previous) IESG, I think that was
reason and justification enough to *suggest* this method to the WG
as well, assuming consistent, continued support for it in the IESG.
You also might have observed that in my original posting,
I deliberately obstained from stating a personal preference;
(Continue reading)

Barry Leiba | 18 May 22:01 2012
Picon

Re: normative language -- a new convention

>>> <speaking both as an individual and as a co-chair>
>>
>> As the responsible AD, I am at a loss to understand how it's at all
>> appropriate for you to make this suggestion as chair.  Please
>> explain specifically where the authority to do that comes from.
...
> So observing a Standards Track RFC published less than 4 weeks ago
> with an apparently Solomonian method to deal with the topic, which
> obviously has been accepted by the (previous) IESG, I think that was
> reason and justification enough to *suggest* this method to the WG
> as well, assuming consistent, continued support for it in the IESG.
> You also might have observed that in my original posting,
> I deliberately obstained from stating a personal preference;
> I even mentioned diverging opinions.

OK.  The reason that caught my attention is that many IETF
participants aren't sure of the role of the chair, and the limitations
of chairs' (and ADs') control.  When one explicitly says that one is
speaking as a chair, one should have a good reason to (declaring
consensus, moderating discussion, doing process management, and so
on).  There's no reason to speak ex-cathedra when one's just informing
the working group of something that might interest them, and I think
chairs should be careful to avoid confusing things by saying they're
acting as chair when they don't need to.

> Please note that this was not a *decision*, but a *suggestion* for
> a way forward (and awaiting feedback from the list):

Exactly the reason that "as a participant" is enough.

(Continue reading)

Peter Saint-Andre | 21 May 20:53 2012

Re: IETF 83 (Paris) - Minutes of URNbis session - please check

On 5/18/12 2:32 AM, Alfred � wrote:

> The working group meeting closed with a discussion on the involvement in
> the work.  Peter Saint-Andre expressed some concern about the
> involvement in the discussions and the need to have more people active
> on the mailing list.  Andy Newton suggested the possibility use internet
> meetings to achieve this.

I think "internet meetings" should be "interim meetings".

Peter

--

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

_______________________________________________
urn mailing list
urn <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn

Gmane