Re: Informal URN Namespace Registration Request

[Brendan McCollam <[e-mail]>]

Thanks to everyone for the feedback we've received. We've decided that 
we are going to abandon this informal registration request, and instead 
submit a formal registration request in the near future.

Thank you all for your time.

Brendan

On 11/17/2015 11:49 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 11/17/15 10:18 AM, Brendan McCollam wrote:
>> We were considering that. Unfortunately we're on a very tight schedule
>> with release deadlines before 2016, and we thought that the informal
>> registration process might proceed faster.
>
> That is no doubt the case. We are trying to make the registration 
> process easier all around but that work is proceeding very slowly 
> because of wrangling over the non-registration aspects of URNs:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn/
>
>> Is there any process in place for "upgrading" an informal registration
>> to a formal one at a later date?
>
> No, you would need to register a new namespace. And upgrading from 
> informal to formal (or more generally from one namespace identifier to 
> another) is somewhat at odds with the philosophy that URNs are 
> supposed to be permanent...
>
> Peter
>
>>
>> Brendan
>>
>> On 11/17/2015 11:11 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> On 11/16/15 11:10 AM, Brendan McCollam wrote:
>>>> Dear Sir or Madam:
>>>>
>>>> Please find attached our request for an Informal URN Namespace
>>>> Registration, as detailed in RFC3406.
>>>
>>> Why not register urn:globus as a formal namespace? It seems strange
>>> for all of the URNs to be of the form urn:urn-8:globus:*
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>
>