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

I guess this is between Barry, Jari, and the IESG.

If it were me, it would seem that a document using a new and 
not-yet-approved process would require a normative reference to the new 
process, and could not take effect until the new process was approved.

Yours,
Joel

On 3/17/16 8:50 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> 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
>>
>