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

From: "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 02:18:43 -0700

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?

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:54:01 -0400

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

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:47:19 -0400

Jari, can you check that version -03 addresses your DISCUSS?

Thanks,
Barry

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 14:08:45 +0000

cleared