Log In

To: Internet Engineering Steering Group <iesg@ietf.org>
From: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Reply-To: IESG Secretary <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Evaluation: draft-creed-ogc-urn-04.txt to Informational
         
--------

Evaluation for draft-creed-ogc-urn-04.txt can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/2594/ 

Last Call to expire on: 2007-11-05

        Please return the full line with your position.

                      Yes  No-Objection  Discuss  Abstain
Jari Arkko           [ X ]     [   ]     [   ]     [   ]
Ron Bonica           [   ]     [ X ]     [   ]     [   ]
Ross Callon          [   ]     [ X ]     [   ]     [   ]
Lisa Dusseault       [ X ]     [   ]     [   ]     [   ]
Lars Eggert          [   ]     [ X ]     [   ]     [   ]
Russ Housley         [   ]     [ X ]     [   ]     [   ]
Cullen Jennings      [   ]     [ X ]     [ . ]     [   ]
Chris Newman         [   ]     [ X ]     [   ]     [   ]
Tim Polk             [   ]     [ X ]     [   ]     [   ]
Dan Romascanu        [   ]     [ X ]     [   ]     [   ]
Mark Townsley        [   ]     [ X ]     [   ]     [   ]
David Ward           [   ]     [ X ]     [   ]     [   ]


"Yes" or "No-Objection" positions from 2/3 of non-recused ADs, 
with no "Discuss" positions, are needed for approval.

DISCUSSES AND COMMENTS:
======================
Cullen Jennings:

Comment [2007-12-19]:
When I read
      OGC may permit use of experimental type values that will not be
      registered.  As a consequence, multiple users may end up using the
      same value for separate uses.  As experimental usage is only
      intended for testing purposes, this should not be a real issue.

I find the idea of URN that aren't unique sort of disturbing. We have past
experience with experiments that become widely successful and then are so
embedded in deployed code that the identifier can not be changed.

Chris Newman:

Comment [2007-12-07]:
Issue:
I didn't see a commitment to keep URNs stable in the document.
Specifically, it would be better if they committed not to
unregister items and not to change an item's meaning in an incompatible
way.

Nit:
      and submit new proposals for additional resources. So can any
      individual or organization can make a contribution by submitting
double use of "can"

Dan Romascanu:

Comment [2007-12-20]:
I support Cullen's DISCUSS but will let him hold the banner. 

Dan




^L
---- following is a DRAFT of message to be sent AFTER approval ---
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'A Uniform Resource Name (URN) 
         namespace for the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)' to 
         Informational RFC 

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'A Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace for the Open Geospatial 
   Consortium (OGC) '
   <draft-creed-ogc-urn-04.txt> as an Informational RFC

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group. 

The IESG contact person is Lisa Dusseault.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-creed-ogc-urn-04.txt

Technical Summary
 
 The Open Geospatial Consortium requests the "urn:ogc" namespace for
further delegation for its specifications, service types, data formats,
etc.  This specification documents how they generally intend to ensure the
uniqueness, persistence and community benefit with the namespace
delegations.
 
Working Group Summary
 
 Not a WG document.
 
Protocol Quality
 
 Lisa Dusseault reviewed this document for the IESG.  Joel Halpern and
Stefan Santesson were the genart and secdir reviewers, and we believe both
of them had their issues resolved (Joel confirmed this).

Note to RFC Editor
 
  Please change to " http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogcUrnPolicy" as the
permanent URL for the OGC URN policy.