Re: Last Call: <draft-mahesh-mef-urn-01.txt> (URN Namespace for MEF Documents) to Informational RFC

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

Barry,

> On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:35 AM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Dan, and thanks for the review.  You're right about the two
> missing sections, and I missed that in my review.  As the URN
> reviewers have accepted this document, and as the base RFCs in
> question are currently being revised by the urnbis working group, I
> think it's not necessary to add those sections to the document, though
> I'll leave that decision to the author -- it *would* be the cleanest
> thing to do.

Agree.

> 
> If we don't do that, I think it's reasonable to remove references to
> 3406 -- take out the phrase "in full conformance with the NID
> registration process specified in URN Namespace Definition Mechanism
> [RFC3406]", remove the citation of 3406 in the Security Considerations
> (there's really nothing there worth referencing), and remove 3406 from
> the Normative References section.

Also agree.

> 
> Mahesh, if you do decide to add the two missing sections, they can be
> brief.  Consider this path, and let us know what you prefer.

MEF has a defined process for updating (specially adding new sections) to a document. It would be somewhat easier for me to edit (and drop) reference to RFC 3406 than to add the two new sections. So unless someone feels a strong desire for adding the two sections, I will work to drop reference to RFC 3406.

Cheers.

> 
> Barry
> 
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> This is a simple and useful document. I understand its need and I support its publication.
>> 
>> There is however one aspect that I believe deserves some discussion.
>> 
>> The second paragraph in the Introduction claims:
>> 
>>> As part of these specifications efforts, there is a need to identify
>>   identifiers in a managed namespace that are unique and persistent.
>>   To ensure that this namespace's uniqueness is absolute, a
>>   registration of a specific Unified Resource Name (URN) URN Syntax
>>   [RFC2141] Namespace Identifier (NID) for use by MEF is being
>>   specified in this document, in full conformance with the NID
>>   registration process specified in URN Namespace Definition Mechanism
>>   [RFC3406].
>> 
>> However, the NID registration process described in RFC 3406 (section 4.3) mentions a couple of mandatory sections that are not included in this RFC as such:
>> 
>>> The RFC must include 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).
>> ...
>>> The RFC must also include a "Community Considerations" section, which
>>   indicates the dimensions upon which the proposer expects its
>>   community to be able to benefit by publication of this namespace as
>>   well as how a general Internet user will be able to use the space if
>>   they care to do so.
>> 
>> Part of the information mentioned in RFC 3406 is present here, but there are no "Namespace Considerations" and "Community Considerations" sections.
>> 
>> It seems to me that we should either drop the 'full conformance" claim, or reorganize the I-D to include the sections mentioned in 3406.
>> 
>> I hope this helps.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: IETF-Announce [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>> The IESG
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 4:24 PM
>>> To: IETF-Announce
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>>> [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Last Call: <draft-mahesh-mef-urn-01.txt> (URN Namespace for MEF
>>> Documents) to Informational RFC
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
>>> following document:
>>> - 'URN Namespace for MEF Documents'
>>>  <draft-mahesh-mef-urn-01.txt> as Informational RFC
>>> 
>>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
>>> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>>> [e-mail] mailing lists by 2016-02-04. Exceptionally, comments may be
>>> sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
>>> the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>> 
>>> Abstract
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]