Re: [urn] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-martin-urn-globus-02: (with DISCUSS)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Jari, can you check that version -03 addresses your DISCUSS?

Thanks,
Barry

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:18 AM, Jari Arkko <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-martin-urn-globus-02: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-martin-urn-globus/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for writing this document. Before recommending its approval, I
> need to have a discussion with you about one aspect. Joel Halpern raised
> a question in his Gen-ART review:
>
> 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.
>
> Is there an answer, or an update?
>
> I cannot imagine adding the requested rationale is difficult to add in
> this case, but it probably should be added. Thoughts?
>
>
>
>