(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
