- From: Ronald E. Daniel <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 11:06:13 -0600
- To: mitra@regis.prod.kaworlds.com
- Cc: uri@bunyip.com
Hi Mitra, > Since the IETF expiration process moves faster than the IETF itself, I've > put a copy off my home page <http://earth.path.net/mitra> Are you saying that you are providing a home for your URN draft instead of resubmitting it? Perhaps Larry will correct me if I am wrong, but my impression of the IETF process is that the group will not consider your approach to URNs if you have allowed the draft to expire. While it provides an easy way to trim the list of competing URN proposals, standardization through attrition is not as satisfying as standardization through vigorous debate. Even if you don't want to change any technical details, surely you can find some parts of the prose that could be improved or expanded upon enough to justify a resubmission. If nothing else, the draft could be enhanced to discuss its position on URCs and address the requirements in the URC scenarios draft. Ron
Received on Saturday, 17 June 1995 13:05:18 UTC