A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Examples
draft-saintandre-urn-example-05

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot discuss]
DISCUSS-DISCUSS

Like Adrian, I'm confused by the connection between private testing and an "example" namespace. You should expand on: how you plan on using this "example" namespace in private testing. An example would be good.

Most importantly, what is the connection between using the experimental NID (RFC3406) and this "example" namespace used for private testing?
You mentioned:

  The experimental namespaces take the form "X-NID" (where "NID" is the
  desired namespace identifier).  Because the "x-" convention has been
  deprecated in general [RFC6648], it seems sensible to achieve the
  same objective in a different way.

I don't see anywhere in this BCP which namespace I should use for my private testing/experiment. In my mind, private testing = experiment.
And I don't get what you meant, in your reply to Adrian, with "in documentation, private testing, and truly experimental contexts."

I was hoping to see a sentence such as: The experimental namespaces [RFC3406] MUST not use the "X-NID" form any longer.
Is this implied by [RFC6648]?
Alternatively, I was hoping for a sentence such as: the experimental namespaces [RFC3406] MUST not use any longer, and the "example" namespace MUST be used instead.

This draft just gives "a different way to achieve the same objective.". So what is the BCP in this document?

I'm confused, so I filed this as DISCUSS-DISCUSS.

[Ballot comment]
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? :)

[Ballot comment]

- 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.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-saintandre-urn-example-04.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

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

In the Formal URN Namespaces registry contained in the Uniform Resource Names (URN) Namespaces registry located at:

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

a new URN will be added to the registry as follows:

URN Namespace: example
Value: [ TBD-at-registration ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA 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.

[Ballot comment]
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.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Examples) to Best Current Practice


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Examples'
  as Best Current Practice

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 2013-04-09. 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


  This document defines a Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace
  identifier enabling generation of URNs that are appropriate for use
  in documentation, private testing, and the like.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-urn-example/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-urn-example/ballot/


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

Document shepherd writeup:

1. Summary

Julian Reschke is the document shepherd. Barry Leiba is the responsible
Area Director.

This document defines a Uniform Resource Name (URN) namespace identifier
enabling generation of URNs that are appropriate for use in documentation,
private testing, and the like.

The document targets BCP, because it recommends use of these example URNs
as examples in documents.


2. Review and Consensus

Although not a WG document, it has been discussed a little on the URNbis WG's
mailing list (around http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg01844.html).
There was little feedback on the actual proposal (as opposed to philosophical
discussions about what URNs are for).

3. Intellectual Property

The author has confirmed compliance with BCP 79.

4. Other Points

No downrefs identified.  IANA considerations checked.