Hello all,
Thanks for your feedback. Speaking for Globus, we're open to making
whatever changes the reviewers feel are necessary. If you'd be more
comfortable with an extra line or two of justification in the "Namespace
Considerations" section, we're happy to add that.
If we do make revisions, does the review process have to start over? Or
can we proceed from this stage after addressing concerns?
Best,
Brendan McCollam
On 03/17/2016 01:37 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
(Adding the IESG)
I’m open to any solution in this matter. We could bypass the requirement. Or we
could add a sentence either about the non-sufficiency of the current spaces, or
about the upcoming change in process. Or we could add a reference to the new
process.
What would you suggest, Barry?
Jari
On 17 Mar 2016, at 13:02, Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote:
In general, I completely agree with you on that. That's why I didn't
say we should use the new process, but, rather, that on the particular
point you raise, we shouldn't be that rigorous right now.
b
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email protected]> wrote:
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
