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

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
>>>
>>>
>>
>