Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-bbf-bbf-urn-02

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Thu, 27 October 2016 23:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A6212965F; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fTZcRXw6NGtY; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 839DE1295FE; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7574C241298; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=1.tigertech; t=1477612298; bh=UQp+Wc95pHGwDxvK4WA6Bm4BEUajqclb5MQLLJR7w4Q=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=mPKTlm8YRJAIkHmnbnihCIQFOPt1yR4FclherPyXRuUNF/6X1PR34GZtYcVb8VQAq +bsZv6JxlaBRjkTIibV/149u3nEHfh+2WCEzMJVax2ce3DCoHGg71PPlG3tjD+krr4 J7E6M8iCqTidHt2ET2XWR10c/3SKo7I8Y6Lkp+eY=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B9CF3240E54; Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
To: "STARK, BARBARA H" <>, "Joel M. Halpern" <>, "A. Jean Mahoney" <>, General Area Review Team <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 19:51:38 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-bbf-bbf-urn-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 23:51:40 -0000

Thanks Barbarra.

With regard to the assignment process text, what you have would work.  I 
would suggest dropping the text about membership and simply talking 
about going through the BBF document creation and approval process.


On 10/27/16 12:53 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>> Major issues:
>>      RFC 3406 states that the namespace considerations section should indicate
>> why a new namespace is needed.  While this is pretty obvious, the text does
>> not actually say anything in that section to explain it.
>>      In particular, I would expect that section to explain why 3 NIDs are needed
>> rather than just 1.
> Thanks for the comments. I propose adding the following text at the end of Namespace Considerations (the mention of the name change is part of a proposal to resolve a separate comment asking how "dslforum-org" relates to BBF):
>    Three NIDs are defined. The "broadband-forum-org" and "dslforum-org"
>    (Broadband Forum changed its name from DSL Forum in 2008) NIDs have
>    been used for many years by BBF without formal registration. As they are
>    referenced by multiple BBF specifications currently in common use, BBF is
>    requesting to formalize them. The new "bbf" NID will be used for new work efforts.
>> Minor issues:
>>      The template in RFC 3406 indicates the the section in each NID on the
>> Process of identifier assignment should "detail the mechanism and or
>> authorities for assigning URNs to resources."  The draft simply says that the
>> BBF will provide procedures.  Do those procedures exist?  If not, there seems
>> to be a minor problem.  If they do exist, it would seem sensible to include a
>> pointer to the place where the BBF publicly documents those procedures, so
>> that people using this information who might want to register something can
>> understand what the rules and expectations are. (I realize that the RFC 6289
>> example this is based on did not include such a pointer, which is why I am
>> making this a minor comment instead of a major one.)
> I'm struggling a bit with this one in trying to figure out what's the best thing to say here. At this point in time, URN assignments only happen through creation of a BBF document that identifies the URN. BBF processes for document creation are published on the members-only part of the website, and only BBF members can participate in creating a BBF document. There is currently no plan to allow non-members to register URNs. There is also no plan to allow BBF members to register URNs for their own use (creating a BBF document requires interest and participation from at least 3 different companies). Would it be appropriate to say "BBF procedures for URN assignment are noted at [BBF-RESOURCES] <>" and on that page explain that URN assignment requires BBF membership and going through the BBF project and document processes?
> Thanks again,
> Barbara