On 3/17/16 8:50 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > [...] > My view is that we should not be too rigorous about this point at this stage.
"Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]> writes: > If it were me, it would seem that a document using a new and > not-yet-approved process would require a normative reference to the new > process, and could not take effect until the new process was approved. It seems that we can meet the current requirement by updating the draft to state why Martin/Globus wants the namespace. I.e., they must have *some* reason. Then per the new requirements, we can be relaxed regarding what constitutes "sufficient" reasons for approval. E.g., looking at the draft, I see in section 1: Globus creates unique identifiers which will be persisted in external systems, and which must be identifiable as references to Globus entities. My guess is that this is why Martin/Globus are going to the effort to register a namespace, and as such, it constitutes "the perceived need for a new namespace (i.e., where existing namespaces fall short of the proposer's requirements)." Dale _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
