A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Eurosystem Messaging
draft-bundesbank-eurosystem-namespace-03
Yes
(Barry Leiba)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Benoît Claise)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Sean Turner)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-12-17 for -02)
Unknown
I believe the community section needs enhancement as discussed by David and Miriam.
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-12-17 for -02)
Unknown
I support Ted's comment that it would be nice to have some note from the ECB stating that it's OK for DBB to be managing this URN namespace. I'm not making this a DISCUSS because I assume that if there's a problem, the ECB and DBB will work it out and we can just update the registry to reflect whatever they agree to.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-12-17 for -02)
Unknown
I support Stephen's comment about lexical equivalence. I didn't think all comparison failures are authentication comparison failures, either ...
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-12-17 for -02)
Unknown
- I'm surprised that you don't define a lexical equivalence rule - there is a long history of authorization/access control failures based on such ambiguity. I assume there are (or will be) eurosystem-specific rules for this, and if there are already then referencing those here would be good in case someone reads this RFC and writes code that makes bad assumptions. If those rules don't yet exist but will, then maybe say so, and provide whatever hint you can as to how a reader of the RFC can go find them. Or, define them if you can and just say that two URNs are only considered equivalent if they contain exactly the same octets. - p5 says that "there is no support for query instructions" - it'd maybe be better if that and similar bits of text said e.g. "query strings MUST NOT be used as part of 'eurosystem' URNs" or similar. As written someone might claim that 'urn:eurosystem:foo?bar=baz' is valid, and I'm not sure if you want that or not. (Same for fragments.) If you do take the approach I suggest then you may need to add a reference to RFC 2119. Having said that, I'm not really sure what's right here, and would expect that others (the "URI police":-) would have better/stronger opinions.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-12-17 for -02)
Unknown
I have no objection to the publication of this document or its contents. I am however wondering whether this type of IANA allocation cannot be delegated rather than requiring IESG review and approval.
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-12-16 for -02)
Unknown
I assume that we have some formal statement from the ECB or ECSB affirming that the Bundesbank is acting on their behalf here? Of course it's absurd to think that they would mislead us, but it might be a nice thing to have for future reference.