Re: [urn] 2141bis questions - (10) Backward compatibility

[Juha Hakala <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

on the basis of experiences gathered during the revision of ISBN and NBN 
namespace registration requests, the revised text below works fine.

It is important to include changes both in namespace management 
processes and in underlying technologies, since a technological change 
may have a major impact on the management of the namespace (for 
instance, a change in the syntax of the identifier  may alter the way in 
which the URNs can be resolved).

Juha

On 25.1.2015 11:58, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Saturday, January 24, 2015 20:14 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre -
> &yet <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 1/5/15 4:08 AM, Juha Hakala wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On 25.12.2014 9:01, John C Klensin wrote:
>>>> The registration procedures for formal and informal
>>>> namespaces (Sections 8.1 and 8.2) both provide for revisions
>>>> of the registration by updating the template.   Especially
>>>> given some discussions in the WG, I think we should impose
>>>> an explicit requirement for a description of differences
>>>> from prior versions and/or backward compatibility in updated
>>>> registrations.
>>>>
>>>> Do others agree?
>>> + 1
>> Good idea.
> I rarely object to making a requirement stronger.   In the
> working draft, ast sentence of section 8.1 tentatively revised
> to read:
>
> 	"A revised registration MUST describe differences from
> 	prior versions and SHOULD make special note of any
> 	relevant changes in the underlying technologies or
> 	namespace management processes."
>
> and a new template section added (A.10) to provide an explicit
> slot for revision information.
>
> That work?
>
>      john
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

  Juha Hakala
  Senior advisor

  The National Library of Finland
  Library Network Services
  P.O.Box 26 (Teollisuuskatu 23)
  FIN-00014 Helsinki University
  Tel. [phone]
  Mobile [phone]