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

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
>