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
