Re: Notification Pre-release of -12 (take 3)

["tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortel.com>
To: "Netconf" <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 1:45 AM
Subject: Notification Pre-release of -12 (take 3)


Hi

Attached is another pre-release of -12. Please let me know if there are
any further changes required. I would ideally like to post this before
the draft cut-off tomorrow.

1. Replaced the capability strings in the IANA considerations section
with the table Bert suggested.

2. Did not make any changes as a result of the discussion with Suresh on
error messages since I think I have found the error message he is
looking for already in the document.

3. Did not make any changes a result of Bert's questions about
netconf.xsd since I think we are good.

<tp>
I will be 'interested' to follow the progress of the URI for the schema.

I did raise the question of what URI to use for a schema - http:, urn:, what
authority - at the start of the year on the apps discuss mailing list (the list
that keeps changing its name).

Chris Newman replied

"As Applications Area Director, I'm not aware of anyone ever asking for that.

I'm holding a discuss position on:
   draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-08
because the present text forbids use of IANA URLs and I consider that an
unacceptable new restriction for IANA considerations.

Current IETF practice discourages use of IANA URLs in IETF specifications.
However, we have one case, RFC 4790, where stable iana.org http URLs are
provided to registry elements and that was done with IANA's permission.  In that
case, the registry was created to be useful to both the IETF and the W3C. The
stable http URLs make the W3C happier so it was worth doing that way.

I would support a similar approach for iana.org http XML namespaces if someone
spent the time to write up the rules and get IANA's consent.

Using an ietf.org http URIs for XML namespaces is a bad idea.  The IETF has
deliberately kept the registry function for our standards separate and I
consider that a feature.  Also, ietf.org is operated by the Secretariat function
so using that domain for registrations would require additional (and more
expensive) coordination than iana.org.  It _might_ be feasible to set up a
redirect from ietf.org to iana.org for XML namespaces, but I worry that's just
one additional level of complexity where things could break (especially if we
transition the secretariat function between vendors periodically as we're in the
process of doing now).

To summarize the options:
1. URNs for XML namespaces -- present IETF common practice
2. non-IETF http URLs for XML namespaces -- acceptable
3. iana.org http URLs for XML namespaces -- nobody has tried this, seems
feasible to me.
4. ietf.org http URLs for XML namespaces -- nobody has tried this.  I think it's
a bad idea.

                - Chris
"
and last week a new I-D duly appeared

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt

whose progress I shall also follow with interest.

Tom Petch
</tp>

Sharon Chisholm
Nortel
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada


--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>