Re: [Gen-art] [urn] Review: draft-martin-urn-globus-02

(Adding the IESG)

I’m open to any solution in this matter. We could bypass the requirement. Or we could add a sentence either about the non-sufficiency of the current spaces, or about the upcoming change in process. Or we could add a reference to the new process.

What would you suggest, Barry?

Jari

On 17 Mar 2016, at 13:02, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:

> In general, I completely agree with you on that.  That's why I didn't
> say we should use the new process, but, rather, that on the particular
> point you raise, we shouldn't be that rigorous right now.
> 
> b
> 
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>> I guess this is between Barry, Jari, and the IESG.
>> 
>> If it were me, it would seem that a document using a new and
>> not-yet-approved process would require a normative reference to the new
>> process, and could not take effect until the new process was approved.
>> 
>> Yours,
>> Joel
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/17/16 8:50 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> 
>>> What I'll say abut this, as responsible AD, is that the
>>> almost-finished urnbis work has updated the registration procedure and
>>> the registration template, and the "Namespace Considerations", along
>>> with the requirement that it "outlines the perceived need for a new
>>> namespace", is no longer there.  That update (see
>>> draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn, Section 6.4 and Appendix A) is not
>>> yet finished and so isn't official, but the intent is clear and the
>>> last call of this document has been posted to the urnbis working group
>>> for review against the old+new requirements.
>>> 
>>> My view is that we should not be too rigorous about this point at this
>>> stage.
>>> 
>>> Barry
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:15 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks, Joel.
>>>> 
>>>> Authors, any responses to this? I think we need to discuss this…
>>>> 
>>>> Jari
>>>> 
>>>> On 12 Feb 2016, at 00:26, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>>>>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>>>>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>>>>> like any other last call comments.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>>>> 
>>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Document: draft-martin-urn-globus-02
>>>>>  A URN Namespace for Globus
>>>>> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
>>>>> Review Date: 11-Feb-2016
>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 9-March-2016
>>>>> IESG Telechat date: 17-March-2016
>>>>> 
>>>>> Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as an
>>>>> informational RFC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This reviewer assumes that the appropriate message has been or will be
>>>>> sent to urn-nid@apps.ietf.org.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Major issues:
>>>>>  As per the pointer in this document to RFC 3406 section 4.3, this
>>>>> document is required to have a Namespace Considerations section which
>>>>> "outlines the perceived need for a new namespace (i.e., where existing
>>>>> namespaces fall short of the proposer's requirements)."  While there is a
>>>>> section called Namespace Considerations, what it lists is the envisioned
>>>>> usages, not the reasons existing name spaces are insufficient.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Minor issues: N/A
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nits/editorial comments: N/A
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> urn mailing list
>>>>> urn@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 