Re: [Ecrit]

Ted Hardie <> Wed, 09 November 2016 19:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33922129592 for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 11:09:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2tgiUMtqG3hL for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 11:09:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85E2212950F for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 11:09:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id q130so268292276qke.1 for <>; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:09:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ixad2FRQYo8jfdYZneDjls1L37vaVAKHy5Xf7Pg4A2A=; b=tdq6p/kiI1b53AzLpARMobODLt2jf1jhQ9KlJeI3fwwDzLCEKNUuQ8Al7ME8xh9tT1 /oWDiiRIguhlADuaORq05ifGZyNMLne5t+0v3n2FITKyhhzgQue2MqGF/505TO5yRBVg 2/TuYludNaf67uFhWAOUVLCnh3g2VtmphwsAjqtI65+Ti340U5/OsPG3ZRrssIezWR74 KR17YKbJLjPAbfBZc8xA7FsbSX6LpSQFDXEKcyowG7EOu3YMZ1QeQziZ+Cmt06oKdMKB j7xWQ7k+OEQhspKRd0w9EfjdFacesLJjVsdf9Il8g7GxUSp8O5j59oqmXzv9G2ZtVxIY E2uA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ixad2FRQYo8jfdYZneDjls1L37vaVAKHy5Xf7Pg4A2A=; b=AwP17oZ+t0Dd/L7zb4EookNjuoeRJdOG1v6r5bo3o3gEw9R/nF3L9XNManINulHxw9 /ypcnrCcd+yQtKJup5Lnpcsesw6JO/V2j0KfOZnC9KIoG3ye7WASUmRGazHbudz91qE2 Oo4Zr8TJ4kZmYrjPu+E5yz6iORF17y7IvUy3vA2uWHh4wz+5CYh7DCXlWtUvTM+mXt5J RDAbM7q/kmaffvX8GlwEgEBJWtAAgiJ3sehZ2420WekitnFioD2XmRXp86YA21KiZsSQ gxaFT7vIs96I2KBzDCLVoD2npAv/Qyrsv2xkFWHIrhCxeJm89ZZHXQX4Bi72KQT7BZ3E FprQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfU0zcZFy6awTgbgHS17XBJvPR5A9DuU//a7XaHMe5JP2q8/UsP3A+9+8fznFh05jEVaDfx0hZej9P2xQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id p184mr1320027qkb.301.1478718560690; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:09:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 11:08:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 11:08:50 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Brian Rosen <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114e2cf6886b070540e2fe72
Archived-At: <>
Cc: ECRIT <>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2016 19:09:23 -0000

Hi Brian,

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Brian Rosen <> wrote:

> On the other hand, we don’t have criteria in 7163 that would allow me, as
> expert reviewer, to just say no.
I disagree with this, on two grounds.  The first is that 7163 is clear that
the registrations in this registry must be sub-services of the sos
service.  This registration is not in and of itself a sub-service.

The second is that URN namespaces are intended to be managed, in order to
maintain the persistence of the identifier and the persistence of the
referent/identifier relationship. While it is possible to have delegated
spaces within a URN namespace, the persistence is guaranteed by an
agreement between the NID holder and those accepting the delegation.
Because this is an IETF namespace, that means that the agreement would have
to be between the IETF and the sub-namespace holders; no such agreement
appears to be part of this.  The risk is that a
country-specific:country:identifier might be re-used, and the IETF would
have no way to inform the group minting the identifier that this was not

> My suggested course of action is to send a liaison to CT1 and request that
> they withdraw this request in favor of just using the registry as it is
> designed to work.  If 3GPP insists that they must have this feature, I’m
> not sure I have sufficient grounds to reject it, but I seek the advice of
> the work group on that.
I agree with your suggested course of action.  If they decline, however, I
believe you have sufficient grounds to reject it.


> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list