[urn] 3406bis-07 - substantive comments
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 22 January 2014 06:55 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89F441A02B3 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 22:55:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.135
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.135 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BrfWspscvEJL for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 22:55:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 584191A024E for <urn@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 22:55:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1W5riL-000PO1-2U; Wed, 22 Jan 2014 01:55:05 -0500
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 01:54:59 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Message-ID: <8CE245D723DEE2BB953F028F@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: [urn] 3406bis-07 - substantive comments
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 06:55:10 -0000
Hi. Apologies for the long silence. The comments below are ones that WG participants should review because they contain suggestions for changes to the Namespace Definition Mechanisms spec (draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-07) that some may consider substantive. Editorial comments that are mostly for Peter by that I will post for the information of the WG will follow, as will an updated version of the transition I-D. best wishes to all for what is left of 2014 john ------------------------- (1) End of Section 4 proper (before 4.1): It seems to me that you need to say what happens with any Experimental namespaces that are in the registry. You should either say "there aren't any", specify that they are automatically reclassified as "formal", or specify that they have to be registered or re-registered using this document's template and indicate that formal namespaces starting in "x-" are explicitly allowed. Presumably the prohibition of trailing hyphens in 2141bis eliminates the possibility of someone registering "x-" itself as an NID, but clarity might benefit by mentioning that in this Note or in the syntax description bullets of Section 4.1. (2) End of Section 4.1: Just a question, but would there be any point in further reserving "xn--". (3) Section 4.2 or IANA Considerations (Section 9): I think this document needs to be clear about whether the expectation is that IANA will assign the next available number or whether applicants get to pick their favorite number as long as it isn't assigned already. I don't have a preference about the choice, but I think the document needs to give IANA clear instructions. (4) Given the recent and ongoing privacy snit, there are several places in this spec where at least a nod to potential privacy issues would be in order. For example, Section 5.4 might indicate that any privacy issues other than "leakage of..." should be described and the second paragraph of Section 10 might say "...potential security and privacy issues...". (5) Sections 6.9 and 8: I'd be a lot happier with this if there was a clear preference expressed for what the RFC Editor traditionally describes as a "stable specification", especially since IANA has seemingly gone out of the business of keeping library of documents submitted in support of registrations. That is expecially important given the formal non-archival status of I-Ds and the observation that "published document" doesn't have nearly as much meaning today as it might have had 20 or 30 years ago. If you/we really want to allow I-Ds, I recommend "Any Internet-Draft, RFC, specification, or other stable document..." in 6.9 and "...Expert Review and a stable and clear specification is not required, the designated experts for NID registration requests are encouraged to prefer that a stable specification exist documenting the namespace definition." in Section 8. I think the intent of that sentence in Section 8 might be a bit more clear if it said "...experts for NID registration requests should strongly encourage applicants to provide a stable specification that documents...". (6) Section 7.1, item 4: It seems to me that this allows a possibility in which the designated experts simply refuse to approve and application, perhaps by engaging in never-ending nitpicking. Do we need an appeal procedure?
- [urn] 3406bis-07 - substantive comments John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] 3406bis-07 - substantive comments Peter Saint-Andre
- [urn] appeals (was: Re: 3406bis-07 - substantive … Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] appeals (was: Re: 3406bis-07 - substant… John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] 3406bis-07 - substantive comments John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] appeals Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] appeals John C Klensin
- Re: [urn] appeals Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] appeals Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] appeals Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] appeals Juha Hakala
- Re: [urn] appeals Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] appeals Juha Hakala