Re: [urn] Request for oneM2M URN Namespace registration

[Miguel Angel Reina Ortega <[e-mail]>]

Hi Peter, 

Thanks so much for your reply. See my comments inline.

Best regards. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Angel Reina Ortega – Testing Expert
Centre for Testing and Interoperability (CTI)
ETSI ● www.etsi.org ● [e-mail]
Phone: [phone] ● Mobile: [phone]

This email may contain confidential information and is intended for 
the use of the addressee only. Any unauthorized use may be unlawful. 
If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender
immediately by using the reply facility in your email software. 
Thank you for your co-operation.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 23 February 2022 18:19
To: Miguel Angel Reina Ortega <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [urn] Request for oneM2M URN Namespace registration

On 2/23/22 2:09 AM, Miguel Angel Reina Ortega wrote:

> URN namespace registrations do not need to be RFCs. An RFC can be provided if the identifier system has not been specified elsewhere, and it is considered useful to create an RFC for this purpose (see e.g. RFC 8458; https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8458). In your case, I do not think that RFC is required or even justified. It will be easier both for you and IETF if you send us just a template as specified in RFC 8141. All registrations published as such templates are listed at https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml.
> 
> ETSI has already made one namespace registration as a template, available at https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-formal/etsi.
> 
> [MRO] ETSI URN namespace was registered by creating an RFC (https://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc8515), and because of the nature of oneM2M, I considered that the same approach was needed. In addition, we already did an attempt to register the oneM2M URN namespace in the past (some years ago) and we followed that approach (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fujimoto-urn-onem2m/history/).

Some registrants prefer to publish an RFC (e.g., for archival purposes), but I agree with Juha that this is not necessary. If nothing else, publishing an Internet-Draft can make it easier to track changes to the registration template, but this isn't necessary either.

[MRO] I would prefer to go for publishing an RFC, but I will accept the approach you consider is the best for this. 

Peter