Subject: [urn] IETF 87 minutes

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 13:37:54 -0400

Minutes from our session at IETF 87 are posted. Please confirm that
the minutes capture the discussion that occurred during this session.

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/minutes/minutes-87-urnbis

-andy

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 10:16:34 +0200

> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/minutes/minutes-87-urnbis

Thanks, Andy; the substance looks good and correct.  A few editorial things:

"requirements for registering a new URN namespace and lowering the it
from RFC Required to Expert Review" -- make "it" be "registration
policy".

Correct spelling of "Larry Masinter" (one "s").

"SM, via Jabber, suggested that expert reviewers talk directly with
the applicants and not let the applicants rely on RFC text for
guidance." -- I would say "not require that applicants rely only on".

"Without any other business presented, the working group sessions
concluded early." -- "session", singular.

--
Barry

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 06:19:02 -0400

--On Tuesday, August 06, 2013 13:37 -0400 Andrew Newton
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Minutes from our session at IETF 87 are posted. Please confirm
> that the minutes capture the discussion that occurred during
> this session.
> 

Andy,

We can (and presumably will) sort details out as revised
documents appear, but, in the hope of saving an iteration when
Peter gets back to 3406bis, I think that the meeting discussion
ran somewhat more in the direction of "specification strongly
preferred; if one is not supplied, the template needs to explain
why it isn't necessary" than I would infer from the draft
minutes.  The suggestion that the template contain a report from
the expert panel (which the draft captures) was really
supplemental to the "provide or explain" requirement, s.t., the
report could basically be a comment on the explanation.

There was also some significant discussion about the "expert
panel" idea, as contrasted with the usual "individual expert" or
"rotating experts" ones.  It probably deserves a brief mention.

Finally, Subramanian should check/comment on this, but I think
his intent was closer to "talk directly with the applicants and
not require that the applicants rely entirely on RFC text" than
the "not let the applicants rely on RFC text" that appears in
the minutes.  The present text can easily be read as implying
that the applicant should listen to the expert and ignore the
RFC.

thanks,
  john

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 20:59:13 -0700

>that the applicant should listen to the expert and ignore the

I suggested gently explaining how things work instead of requiring 
that the applicant relies on the text in the RFC for guidance.  I am 
not suggesting that the applicant should listen to the expert or that 
the applicant should ignore the RFC.  The idea here is to make the 
registration process easier for the applicant.

Regards,
-sm