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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Repeating what I said in my other note that had different distribution:

What I'll say abut this, as responsible AD, is that the
almost-finished urnbis work has updated the registration procedure and
the registration template, and the "Namespace Considerations", along
with the requirement that it "outlines the perceived need for a new
namespace", is no longer there.  That update (see
draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn, Section 6.4 and Appendix A) is not
yet finished and so isn't official, but the intent is clear and the
last call of this document has been posted to the urnbis working group
for review against the old+new requirements.

My view is that we should not be too rigorous about this point at this stage.

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?
>
>
>
>