Re: [urn] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition-08: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

> On Aug 2, 2017, at 8:40 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> A small comment on one point...
> 
> On 8/2/17 6:39 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> --On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 16:01 -0700 Ben Campbell
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> <snip/>
> 
>>> And
>>> since IANA may have to deal with a mix of old and new
>>> templates for some transition period, it doesn't remove the
>>> need for them.
>> 
>> Whoops!   I either don't understand what you are saying above or
>> it indicates one or more series editorial or explanatory
>> problems in this I-D, RFC 8141, or both.  For any given
>> namespace, there is only one template at any given time and IANA
>> has only one such template registered.  There is no transition
>> in IANA's scope and no need (or opportunity) for IANA to deal
>> with an old template and a new one at the same time for any
>> given namespace.    I assume that a template (again for a
>> particular namespace) could discuss transitions from an earlier
>> form, but that would be an intra-namespace issue, not anything
>> IANA needs to deal with or even be aware of.  The sense in which
>> IANA needs to deal with both old and new templates is that there
>> are namespaces defined under RFC 2611 or 3406 for which new
>> templates have not yet been provides (and may never be), but
>> that isn't a transition topic that IANA has to manage either
>> (and the procedures for having some older registrations
>> conforming to the old template and mechanisms and some
>> conforming to the new ones was carefully sorted out with IANA as
>> part of RFC 8141, so, if there is an issue, it isn't with this
>> document.
> 
> With my RFC 8141 co-author hat on, I concur. There is no transition
> period in general, and there is no transition period for any particular
> namespace because if the registration is updated (e.g., from version 1
> to version 2) then the old registration is immediately outdated as soon
> as the new registration is placed in the registry by IANA. IMHO this is
> clearly spelled out in RFC 8141 (and RFC 3406 before that).
> 

Yes, that was a mistake on my part (see my response to John). In my defense, I’ve reviewed a lot of documents over the past couple of days and my brain was tired :-)

Ben.