A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Examples
draft-saintandre-urn-example-05
Yes
(Barry Leiba)
No Objection
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Sean Turner)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-04-04 for -04)
Unknown
I have no objection to the publication of this document. In your position: - I would not have sent this out as a BCP, but would have made it standards track as it allocates "codepoints" - I would have tidied the Abstract to remove "and the like" possibly replacing it with something more specific if there is anything that can be said. - Not have encouraged "private testing" using the "example" namespace. If an experimental namespace is needed, I think it should exist separately. That said, I don't have a strong enough opinon on any of these three points to do more than flage them for consideration.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-04-20)
Unknown
Thanks Peter for addressing my DISCUSS-DISCUSS
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-04-09 for -04)
Unknown
Christer Holmberg made this comment: Editorial nits: Section 2.6 contains the word “counseled”. While not wrong, is there a reason why more common IETF language can’t be used here? E.g. “recommended against”, or something? :)
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-04-08 for -04)
Unknown
I am ambivalent about whether this is appropriate for PS or BCP. Other points made by the Farrel(l)s seem reasonable to consider.
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-04-09 for -04)
Unknown
Like others, I don't find the analogy to "X-" headers appropriate. That is, it doesn't really seem like the arguments against "x-" in RFC 6648 really apply here. By that analogy, you would be expecting example URNs to leak into standards-like usage, which it seems like you are expressly not trying to do here. The better analogy would be to RFC 3849 -- things you never would expect to see in the real Internet. That said, this URN namespace is a fine thing to have.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-04-06 for -04)
Unknown
- I was confusd a bit by this, (before I asked Barry:-) Its not clear when or if its ok for this BCP to be used as the basis for an IESG DICSUSS. I think it'd be great if this spec were more clear that its entirely ok to use "urn:example:foo" in almost all cases without anyone having to register "foo" with IANA. And that'd imply that it'd not be ok for an AD to put on a DISCUSS saying "you need to go register foo as a sub-namespace with IANA before using urn:example:foo" - section 4: Why does the NSS *need* to be a unique string? I suggest s/needs to/is best as/ Section 2.6 gets this right I think though.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-04-09 for -04)
Unknown
I think I am more confused by Stephen's comments than the text itself.
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown