[urn] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-martin-urn-globus-02: (with DISCUSS)
"Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 17 March 2016 09:18 UTC
Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: urn@ietf.org
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8B412D6EA; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 02:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.17.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160317091843.6022.58207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 02:18:43 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn/aXlMiVEO_BgO-a3JG_pp5N1h_WI>
Cc: draft-martin-urn-globus@ietf.org, joel.halpern@ericsson.com, urn@ietf.org, barryleiba@computer.org
Subject: [urn] Jari Arkko's Discuss on draft-martin-urn-globus-02: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/urn/>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:18:44 -0000
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?