Re: [urn] The namespace registration trainsition draft, version 04

[Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[e-mail]>]

On 2/16/15 2:58 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi.
>
> As the last of this round of document postings, I've just
> submitted draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition.

Hi John & Juha,

Thanks again for writing this document.

> For those familiar with prior versions, there are really no
> substantive changes.  The major ones reflect the transition from
> a separate 3406bis to the consolidated 2141bis.  So it is
> probably reasonable to look at a diff.

Given that it's been a while since I first review the document, I've 
decided to read it again. Here are a few small comments.

First, I sense a small ambiguity in the Introduction:

    Those
    potential problems included the possibility of the same name being
    used to identify different namespaces with different rules.

I tripped slightly over the word "name" given that we're talking about 
Uniform Resource Names. Perhaps "string" or "namespace identifier" would 
be better than "name" here.

> I have also made a number of editorial changes that, I hope,
> will make the document somewhat more precise.
>
> In addition to a general review of the draft, WG participants
> should note that the placeholder "[[CREF3" in Section 2
> effectively asks a substantive question about whether there is
> content in the now-expired draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3187bis-isbn-urn
> and draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3044bis-issn-urn that needs to be moved
> into either this documents or 2141bis.  If such content is not
> identified soon, we will assume the answer is "no" and will
> remove the placeholder.

Although I have not yet looked at those expired I-Ds in detail (they are 
rather long), I trust Juha to do the right thing about the information 
contained in them.

> The immediately-following "[[CREF4" ask a similar question about
> other registered namespaces that might need specific transition
> information.  Again, if there are such issues, please comment
> soon or the placeholder will simply be removed.

My feeling is that it would be best to focus this document on ISBN and 
ISSN only. I also doubt that we have the energy here to complete a 
review of all the registered namespaces. However, I would be happy to 
glance at them to see if any need special attention.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/