A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Eurosystem Messaging
RFC 7207

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

Barry Leiba Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2013-12-17 for -02)
No email
send info
I believe the community section needs enhancement as discussed by David and Miriam.

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

Comment (2013-12-17 for -02)
No email
send info
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.

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2013-12-17 for -02)
No email
send info
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.

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2013-12-17 for -02)
No email
send info
I support Stephen's comment about lexical equivalence. 

I didn't think all comparison failures are authentication comparison failures, either ...

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2013-12-17 for -02)
No email
send info
- 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.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

Comment (2013-12-16 for -02)
No email
send info
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.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection