[urn] Re: Request for registration of formal URN namespace "dnp"

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your reply. Comments inline.

On 10/11/26 9:50 PM, Director - Stakeholder Engagement wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> Thank you for the review and for the editorial pass. I have looked 
> through the diff and accept all of it.
> 
> On your two points:
> 
> 1. "Assignment is closed"
> 
> You are right, and I am happy to take "restricted". It reads better and 
> removes the implication that assignment has stopped.
> 
> While you have the file open, there is a related point. The template 
> uses "closed" in three different senses, and the second is the one most 
> likely to be misread in the way you describe:
> 
>    a. Assignment field: "Assignment is closed."
>    b. Syntax field: "The set is closed at any given time and is extended
>       only by amendment to the PDA specification..."
>    c. Syntax field: "a class no longer used for new assignments is marked
>       closed..."
> 
> My suggestion would be "Assignment is restricted" for (a), and "The set 
> of classes is fixed at any given time" for (b). I would leave (c), since 
> the surrounding sentence explains the sense inline. Please make those 
> changes directly if you agree; there is no need for another round trip 
> on my account.

I agree with those changes (or lack thereof) and have made them in my 
working copy:

https://github.com/stpeter/urn-namespaces/commit/394686123d1773e776ec644bb775a962cbc7d1c8

> 2. The Internet-Draft
> 
> It was submitted to provide a stable, archived reference in the IETF 
> domain, in line with the recommendation in RFC 8141 that registrants 
> supply a stable specification documenting the namespace. PDA is not 
> pursuing publication as an RFC, and I would not want the registration 
> held pending any such process.
> 
> The authoritative long-term documentation is the specification PDA 
> maintains at https://standards.dnp.gov.pk/, which is cited in the same 
> field and is kept synchronised with the registration. The Internet-Draft 
> supplements that with a citable copy outside PDA's own infrastructure, 
> which matters given the institutional continuity commitments the 
> registration makes. I am aware the draft expires in February 2027; the 
> archived version remains permanently citable, which is the property PDA 
> was seeking.
> 
> If PDA later decides to pursue publication through the Independent 
> Submission Stream, we would do so separately and submit a revised 
> template at that point rather than delay the registration now.

Yes, that is the best approach. If PDA does decide to pursue 
publication, please contact me offlist and I will provide further advice.

We seem to be done, so I will now submit the registration to IANA.

Peter