[urn] draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-06 and formal registration procedures
Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> Fri, 19 July 2013 17:28 UTC
Return-Path: <andy@hxr.us>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C651211E817B for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:28:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.375, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ENayFFYcQno7 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (mail-pa0-f41.google.com [209.85.220.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E05F11E818E for <urn@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id bj3so4697549pad.0 for <urn@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=jMT2HijOW75rFaoIe7U2d0g6CvEaUMS0QqfSCSPA6UU=; b=GuI5T7Yz924xQRIjSxv9gti+VTDnl6LxEVaasJSGRK6of+8MflzNBciIlfWxKdtewB DtpHAATdESMmVmLpfdywm9svW16Ua6ZI2KMYMx6PijKT1H0bsfnmBBH5TiGY3JXrT6ny n8sVK/VNlA4Czy3elK51O+MZwzJOB+pD1gcwi0cGN9eJwZN+lkHpiaPKwGk6SRtvtDP8 vOGvs690Or2T7gGA36sJv1Nstysj2VfGPS0eEoq8c02L/KBArKyFDcSqUQRB3hc5Vgpq Gk0ewupH/1yf5WoSMakCmKpzdnsS1WtCiL2A9eOhb21M5g/o598Fccns6PU+yJ81aZNE Kzfw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.139.167 with SMTP id qz7mr19107415pab.157.1374254893379; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.203.69 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jul 2013 10:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [192.149.252.11]
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 13:28:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAQiQRdUP2SwWU4MScXfsAW1HcC_ppgKp+3G=3kS66qsn9q6vg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
To: "urn@ietf.org" <urn@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnnk/zfNsuFGiBYJkGg6VrpCQaExSK4GqjQfZWDstJ9bEO4ArgYbyT7FMYa7eTDrhJ71O2b
Subject: [urn] draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-06 and formal registration procedures
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:28:26 -0000
Section 6.1 states that formal URN namespace registration is to have IETF Review by publication as an RFC sponsored by an AD. Do we want to keep this process as is or perhaps have one that is less onerous? Both the informal and formal registration processes require the applicant to address comments, so would publication as an independent-stream RFC be sufficient? -andy
- [urn] draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-06 … Andrew Newton