At 6:10 AM -0700 10/6/08, Julian Reschke wrote: >Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: >> On Monday 06 October 2008 15:31:07 ext Julian Reschke, you wrote: >>> Would there be any objections if I tried to update the stuff that needs >>> to be updated (references, ABNF), and submit as Draft Standard? >> >> As far as I know, there is no need to resubmit a new version of the document >> to advance its standard status. See RFC2026. What matters is, it's in >> Standards Tracks in the first place. >> >> Unless there are non-editorial corrections/updates to be made, this looks like >> a waste of time to me. > >Well, it has normative references to things that have been obsoleted >since and it doesn't use ABNF, so I *do* think it needs a minor freshup. > >BR, Julian > Having reviewed a lot of URN nid requests over the years, I can't say I've ever seen a syntax error that derives from 2141 using something other than ABNF (which is *not* required, simply available). Following the chains to the current version of the URI syntax etc. is also not that hard, so I don't see the need for a change here. If you would like to see it progress, I am sure I can help you find the requisite interoperable implementations to report upon, but, honestly, it seems to be working fine as-is. regards, Ted _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf