RE: Gen-ART review of draft-bundesbank-eurosystem-namespace-02

"Black, David" <david.black@emc.com> Tue, 17 December 2013 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <david.black@emc.com>
X-Original-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 893951AE184; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 07:06:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 wKf_-_19NDSZ; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 07:06:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailuogwdur.emc.com (mailuogwdur.emc.com [128.221.224.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64EE01ADF5E; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 07:06:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maildlpprd51.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd51.lss.emc.com [10.106.48.155]) by mailuogwprd51.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id rBHF6PPv028212 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:06:28 -0500
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd51.lss.emc.com rBHF6PPv028212
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1387292789; bh=IjtC2zQuywURpB6Tj35U+AArfmg=; h=From:To:CC:Date:Subject:Message-ID:References:In-Reply-To: Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; b=tYcpli5hMxLiF0hU3AA+184EA/ewFlY1q+HsZx9ODW0nTtoZZhiAgtK3E8GNwh/07 Fevo6kloRjRShrNMGQoKln0nNKtQBZ4ayPywkWy5OAOYw4RJTu5UStStbKh41V7mxg YnoUsavONzGgmVAGfcNLns4Mng5LJFeJhLxcpego=
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd51.lss.emc.com rBHF6PPv028212
Received: from mailusrhubprd02.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd02.lss.emc.com [10.253.24.20]) by maildlpprd51.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:06:22 -0500
Received: from mxhub09.corp.emc.com (mxhub09.corp.emc.com [10.254.92.104]) by mailusrhubprd02.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id rBHF6Mnl001460 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:06:22 -0500
Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.107]) by mxhub09.corp.emc.com ([10.254.92.104]) with mapi; Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:06:21 -0500
From: "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
To: "iso20022@bundesbank.de" <iso20022@bundesbank.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:06:21 -0500
Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-bundesbank-eurosystem-namespace-02
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-bundesbank-eurosystem-namespace-02
Thread-Index: Ac77Na4/gSUGsHhLT628HUL+yunqIAAAFEkw
Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE712026ECD3977@MX15A.corp.emc.com>
References: <OF96C0304D.84369D1C-ONC1257C44.0048EA75-C1257C44.00506EF5@bundesbank.de>
In-Reply-To: <OF96C0304D.84369D1C-ONC1257C44.0048EA75-C1257C44.00506EF5@bundesbank.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd02.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: DLM_1, public
Cc: "urn-nid@ietf.org" <urn-nid@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
X-BeenThere: urn-nid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussion of new namespace identifiers for URNs <urn-nid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn-nid/>
List-Post: <mailto:urn-nid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 15:06:40 -0000

Miriam,

> We have been surprised by your concerns regarding the application for a
> Formal URN Namespace, which we'd have expected being raised by someone
> during the two stages of URN-NID Expert Review the draft has undergone
> since August 2013.  Apparently, the URN experts
> active on the urn-nid list did not share your concerns.

IETF operates a multi-round review process that encourages reviews of
drafts by people beyond the experts in the specific technology.

This review is an expected part of that process; I suggest that you
consult with your sponsoring AD (Barry) on any process concerns.

> The (prospective) 'eurosystem' URN Namespace is modeled after the very
> similar 'swift' Formal URN namespace registered per RFC 3615, and there
> have been allocated quite a couple of other Formal URN Namespaces to
> national institutions and international treaty organizations, which seem to
> have similar usage profiles; we are not aware of similar arguments having
> been raised against the allocation of these Formal URN Namespaces.

For clarity, I am not opposed to the allocation of the namespace.  However,
I would like to see a Community Considerations section that is actually
responsive to RFC 3406's stated requirement.

[... snip ...]

> We will confer with the sponsoring AD on possible amendments to the
> Community Considerations in our draft. (Based on previous feedback, this
> section has been kept relatively short and concise.)

Much of the contents of your response would be useful explanatory
text to add to the draft.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: miriam.ortseifen@bundesbank.de [mailto:miriam.ortseifen@bundesbank.de]
> On Behalf Of iso20022@bundesbank.de
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:39 AM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; urn-nid@ietf.org; iso20022@bundesbank.de
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-bundesbank-eurosystem-namespace-02
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> thanks for the Gen-ART review [1] you have performed on our draft, and our
> apologies for the delay in responding to it.
> 
> We have been surprised by your concerns regarding the application for a
> Formal URN Namespace, which we'd have expected being raised by someone
> during the two stages of URN-NID Expert Review the draft has undergone
> since August 2013.  Apparently, the URN experts
> active on the urn-nid list did not share your concerns.
> 
> The (prospective) 'eurosystem' URN Namespace is modeled after the very
> similar 'swift' Formal URN namespace registered per RFC 3615, and there
> have been allocated quite a couple of other Formal URN Namespaces to
> national institutions and international treaty organizations, which seem to
> have similar usage profiles; we are not aware of similar arguments having
> been raised against the allocation of these Formal URN Namespaces.
> 
> 'eurosystem' URNs will be used together with already standardized URNs, in
> particular ISO Std 20022 URNs; it is important for their use that the role
> of these URNs and the authority behind these URNs be easily and clearly
> identified, and be at a perceived "equivalent" standards level -- parallel
> to the 'swift' URNs that are managed by an older international treaty
> organization with similar purpose but smaller scope and less consumer
> friendly targets (regarding timeliness of transaction execution and cost
> effectiveness). Therefore, an Informal URN Namespace would not meet the
> target objectives of the supporting countries and financial institutions.
> 
> Admittedly, it is true that, at the first stage of usage of the
> 'eurosystem' namespace, the mass production use of the assigned URNs will
> be contained in messages carried in cryptographic digital envelopes or
> Vitual Private Networks.  However, the transparency requirements (needed
> for establishing and maintaining public trust into the subject financial
> transaction systems), open software development processes, and software
> deployment require the origin and authority for the URNs to be easily
> identified, and the URNs to be resolved on the public Internet.
> Therefore we claim that a Formal URN Namespace is warranted for the
> intended purpose.
> 
> We will confer with the sponsoring AD on possible amendments to the
> Community Considerations in our draft. (Based on previous feedback, this
> section has been kept relatively short and concise.)
> 
> Kind regards,
> Miriam
> 
> 
> [1]
>   http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84600.html
> 
> --
> Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte
> Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail
> irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und
> vernichten Sie diese E-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte
> Weitergabe dieser Mail oder von Teilen dieser Mail ist nicht gestattet.
> 
> Wir haben alle verkehrsüblichen Maßnahmen unternommen, um das Risiko der
> Verbreitung virenbefallener Software oder E-Mails zu minimieren, dennoch
> raten wir Ihnen, Ihre eigenen Virenkontrollen auf alle Anhänge an dieser
> Nachricht durchzuführen. Wir schließen außer für den Fall von Vorsatz oder
> grober Fahrlässigkeit die Haftung für jeglichen Verlust oder Schäden durch
> virenbefallene Software oder E-Mails aus.
> 
> Jede von der Bank versendete E-Mail ist sorgfältig erstellt worden, dennoch
> schließen wir die rechtliche Verbindlichkeit aus; sie kann nicht zu einer
> irgendwie gearteten Verpflichtung zu Lasten der Bank ausgelegt werden.
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you
> are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error)
> please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any
> unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of  the material in this
> e-mail or of parts hereof is strictly forbidden.
> 
> We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software
> viruses but nevertheless advise you to carry out your own virus checks on
> any attachment of this message. We accept no liability for loss or damage
> caused by software viruses except in case of gross negligence or willful
> behaviour.
> 
> Any e-mail messages from the Bank are sent in good faith, but shall not be
> binding or construed as constituting any kind of obligation on the part of
> the Bank.
>