Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace Registration Transition
draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition-08

[Ballot comment]
The text in the RFC editor note looks fine to me. If you'd like to work with the author to refine the phrasing, I'm okay with variations in how this is worded.

[Ballot comment]
I have a different take on Adam's discuss point. I don't think its appropriate for this draft to both obsolete 3044 and 3187 and make them historical. This draft doesn't replace them. And since IANA may have to deal with a mix of old and new templates for some transition period, it doesn't remove the need for them.

Instead, I think it would make more sense for this draft to just change their status to historical, but not obsolete them. And also mention that in the abstract :-) .

[Ballot discuss]
The specification has not been properly vetted against the I-D Checklist.

The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC3044 and RFC3187, but the abstract doesn't mention this, which it should. Listing of obsoleted documents in the Abstract is specified by the ID-Checklist document (§3, 1.D, first bullet),

[Ballot comment]
Major comment:

Section 3 has suggested changes for RFC3188 for the next time it is revised. It's not clear, outside of institutional knowledge (which is a very fragile construct) how the indicated changes are going to be properly remembered when such revision takes place. Is there a good reason this document doesn't simply update RFC3188 by indicating an updated template directly? If this doesn't make sense, I would think that we need at least an erratum associated with RFC3188 that indicates the nature of update that needs to be performed.

Minor comment:

The document has at least nine places where external documents are mentioned but which are not, themselves, reference citations (e.g., "RFC 8141"  rather than "[RFC8141]" in section 2). This will interact poorly with some RFC-related tooling. Please change these to references.

[Ballot comment]
Major comment:

Section 3 has suggested changes for RFC3188 for the next time it is revised. It's not clear, outside of institutional knowledge (which is a very fragile construct) how the indicated changes are going to be properly remembered when such revision takes place. Is there a good reason this document doesn't simply update RFC3188 by indicating an updated template directly? If this doesn't make sense, I would think that we need at least an erratum associated with RFC3188 that indicates the nature of update that needs to be performed.

Minor comments:

The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes RFC3044 and RFC3187, but the abstract doesn't mention this, which it should.

The document has at least nine places where external documents are mentioned but which are not, themselves, reference citations (e.g., "RFC 8141"  rather than "[RFC8141]" in section 2). This will interact poorly with some RFC-related tooling. Please change these to references.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition-08.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Services Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

We understand that the instructions in this document impact the Uniform Resource Names (URN) Namespaces registry located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/

Upon approval of this document, we intend to list this document as an additional reference for the registry.

In Section 10.2, we would request that the authors replace

http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml

with

http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces

We will work with the authors to ensure that the requirements of the IANA Considerations section of this draft are complied with after approval as an RFC.

The IANA Services Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed.


Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Services Specialist
PTI

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: Barry Leiba , barryleiba@computer.org, draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition@ietf.org, urnbis-chairs@ietf.org, alexey.melnikov@isode.com, urn@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace Registration Transition) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Uniform Resource Names, Revised WG
(urnbis) to consider the following document: - 'Uniform Resource Name (URN)
Namespace Registration Transition'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2017-07-17. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The original registration procedure for formal Uniform Resource Name
  (URN) namespaces required IETF Consensus.  That requirement
  discouraged some registrations and increased the risk for problems
  that could occur as a result.  The requirements have now been changed
  by RFC 8141, which adopts a different model, focusing on encouraging
  registration and publication of information for all appropriate
  namespaces.  This document clarifies the status of relevant older
  RFCs and confirms and documents advice to IANA about selected
  existing registrations.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

1. Summary

Barry Leiba is the document shepherd; Alexey Melnikov is the responsible AD.

This document follows from RFC 8141, which changed the registration requirements
for formal URN namespaces.  This document clarifies the status of relevant older
RFCs and advises IANA about some specific existing registrations.

2. Review and Consensus

This document was written in order to make the status of certain bits of the
URNBIS working group's work clear, and to take it out of the path of the
document that became RFC 8141.  Much of what's in here was discussed before
this document existed, and there has been ample discussion of and agreement
to the content of it.  This is really a non-controversial housekeeping document,
which is set to Standards Track only so as to cleanly obsolete some existing
Standards Track RFCs and to request their reclassification to Historic.

The real meat of what this document accomplishes has been submitted to IANA
separately, as updated registration templates for the ISSN and ISBN URN
namespaces.

3. Intellectual Property

The author is in full compliance with BCPs 78 and 79.  There are no IPR
statements related to RFC 5988 nor to this replacement.

4. Other Points

This document requests that RFCs 3044 and 3187 be reclassified as Historic,
which requires a separate datatracker action from the AD (and a separate
management item on the telechat).

The IANA instructions are a significant item in this document: they record
IANA's acceptance of the new templates and updating of the reference
information for the relevant namespaces.  What's in here is clear, and mostly
asks for compliance with RFC 8141 going forward.  Nothing to worry about here.