Re: [Gen-art] [urn] Review: draft-martin-urn-globus-02
worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Thu, 17 March 2016 13:29 UTC
Return-Path: <worley@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF3F512D943 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 06:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.934
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.934 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mshZaGGlDNqV for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 06:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CB1412D91B for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 06:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-po-11v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.235]) by resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id X1Ub1s00554zqzk011VWM1; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:29:30 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([73.143.237.82]) by resomta-po-11v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id X1VU1s0071nMCLR011VV85; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:29:30 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id u2HDTRrY009990; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:29:27 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id u2HDTQ2n009982; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:29:26 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: hobgoblin.ariadne.com: worley set sender to worley@alum.mit.edu using -f
From: worley@ariadne.com
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <56EAA9AD.2070808@joelhalpern.com> (jmh@joelhalpern.com)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:29:26 -0400
Message-ID: <87io0l9qrt.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1458221370; bh=mqco/g2HmgrSfMsKPc9jb7OcoUoM2K8vKbe17GIlunE=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:From:To:Subject:Date: Message-ID; b=itA3eNKnovH9qn3GKLjsixDR+fjd9vWFjlOhu6sGgtkLNXo0mDZNi0ZfWx+WvMfck Z7cF055IRbUDg9+71IdisZ5ZsNeIRm+Z3xVzr7zBH9ebX0Wed5Tnzw9N3VRBOeS9DH RnmABTzYJonNZf7ZCim9hE73tQcSu3AhIMtDGDEctTbSUGbdXTJMmzrUuPDVb0KjjG QOTNdS3514h2f/MwU47dXJ3fv7TsAYF1dKdqiqHeGfOfxCQlPVUxTYWSlwQRYb/gzt BxWFJazmqtA739wrunRjTqEQ6oBQkhzNSsinU58wERW/xsL4mRvttwsgsFHf2LK1+/ jM7I0JD3fGMdQ==
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ZUuGi_KNyUxUpel2K4xmg_BZ3Fo>
Cc: draft-martin-urn-globus.all@ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, barryleiba@computer.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [urn] Review: draft-martin-urn-globus-02
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:29:42 -0000
On 3/17/16 8:50 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > [...] > My view is that we should not be too rigorous about this point at this stage. "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> writes: > 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. It seems that we can meet the current requirement by updating the draft to state why Martin/Globus wants the namespace. I.e., they must have *some* reason. Then per the new requirements, we can be relaxed regarding what constitutes "sufficient" reasons for approval. E.g., looking at the draft, I see in section 1: Globus creates unique identifiers which will be persisted in external systems, and which must be identifiable as references to Globus entities. My guess is that this is why Martin/Globus are going to the effort to register a namespace, and as such, it constitutes "the perceived need for a new namespace (i.e., where existing namespaces fall short of the proposer's requirements)." Dale
- [Gen-art] Review: draft-martin-urn-globus-02 Joel M. Halpern
- [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 2016… A. Jean Mahoney
- Re: [Gen-art] [urn] Review: draft-martin-urn-glob… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Gen-art] [urn] Review: draft-martin-urn-glob… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Gen-art] [urn] Review: draft-martin-urn-glob… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Gen-art] [urn] Review: draft-martin-urn-glob… Barry Leiba
- Re: [Gen-art] [urn] Review: draft-martin-urn-glob… Dale R. Worley
- Re: [Gen-art] [urn] Review: draft-martin-urn-glob… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Gen-art] [urn] Review: draft-martin-urn-glob… Brendan McCollam
- Re: [Gen-art] [urn] Review: draft-martin-urn-glob… Barry Leiba