Re: <draft-ietf-uri-resource-names-03.txt> to be deleted.

Ronald E. Daniel (rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov)
Sat, 17 Jun 1995 11:06:13 -0600


From: "Ronald E. Daniel" <rdaniel@acl.lanl.gov>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 11:06:13 -0600
Message-Id: <199506171706.LAA29402@idaknow.acl.lanl.gov>
To: mitra@regis.prod.kaworlds.com
Subject: Re:  <draft-ietf-uri-resource-names-03.txt> to be deleted.
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