I guess this is between Barry, Jari, and the IESG.
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.
Yours,
Joel
On 3/17/16 8:50 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
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 5:15 AM, Jari Arkko <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks, Joel.
Authors, any responses to this? I think we need to discuss this…
Jari
On 12 Feb 2016, at 00:26, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-martin-urn-globus-02
A URN Namespace for Globus
Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
Review Date: 11-Feb-2016
IETF LC End Date: 9-March-2016
IESG Telechat date: 17-March-2016
Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as an informational RFC.
This reviewer assumes that the appropriate message has been or will be sent to
[email protected].
Major issues:
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.
Minor issues: N/A
Nits/editorial comments: N/A
_______________________________________________
urn mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
