Re: Ping

   As I'm sure you're aware, we do not have a meeting in Minneapolis; however,
   we do have a draft out there, <draft-ietf-urlreg-procedures-05.txt>.  I've
   seen no public discussion of it -- is everyone satisfied with this?  (The

I'm speaking for myself and not the group as a whole, but I'm not sure
that _anyone_ is satisfied with it.  My recollection is that after it
was last revised, I asked a number of questions (so, how does one get
an OID?  is the process cheap and easy?  etc.) and that there were no
good answers to these questions.  Also, the properties that some
people had thought best about it appeared to vanish upon closer
examination.

Again, speaking for myself, I don't see myself using any number-based
scheme.

   guidelines draft has already been last-called, but it is dependent upon the
   procedures draft, due to internal references.)  
   While you're thinking about this, please consider the draft I sent out
   yesterday on the vnd.* URL scheme tree.  It's very deliberately based on the
   procedures draft, as an example of how alternative trees can be structured
   and specified.  I don't consider it a product of this Working Group, but a
   "byproduct" of our work; however, Keith Moore asked that the group review it
   before it goes on to BCP.  I'll be publishing this with the I-D
   administrator tomorrow.  

I like it much better.  However, I'd personally prefer the re-use of
an existing identifier (e.g., a DNS string) rather than invent a whole
new one.  Each such identifier incurs a substantial overhead to track
and keep current.  Where's the advantage to not using it (and existing
identifier) that offsets the extra overhead?

Craig