Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-bundesbank-eurosystem-namespace-02

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 15:38:33 +0100

David,

thanks for the Gen-ART review [1] you have performed on our draft, and our
apologies for the delay in responding to it.

We have been surprised by your concerns regarding the application for a
Formal URN Namespace, which we'd have expected being raised by someone
during the two stages of URN-NID Expert Review the draft has undergone
since August 2013.  Apparently, the URN experts
active on the urn-nid list did not share your concerns.

The (prospective) 'eurosystem' URN Namespace is modeled after the very
similar 'swift' Formal URN namespace registered per RFC 3615, and there
have been allocated quite a couple of other Formal URN Namespaces to
national institutions and international treaty organizations, which seem to
have similar usage profiles; we are not aware of similar arguments having
been raised against the allocation of these Formal URN Namespaces.

'eurosystem' URNs will be used together with already standardized URNs, in
particular ISO Std 20022 URNs; it is important for their use that the role
of these URNs and the authority behind these URNs be easily and clearly
identified, and be at a perceived "equivalent" standards level -- parallel
to the 'swift' URNs that are managed by an older international treaty
organization with similar purpose but smaller scope and less consumer
friendly targets (regarding timeliness of transaction execution and cost
effectiveness). Therefore, an Informal URN Namespace would not meet the
target objectives of the supporting countries and financial institutions.

Admittedly, it is true that, at the first stage of usage of the
'eurosystem' namespace, the mass production use of the assigned URNs will
be contained in messages carried in cryptographic digital envelopes or
Vitual Private Networks.  However, the transparency requirements (needed
for establishing and maintaining public trust into the subject financial
transaction systems), open software development processes, and software
deployment require the origin and authority for the URNs to be easily
identified, and the URNs to be resolved on the public Internet.
Therefore we claim that a Formal URN Namespace is warranted for the
intended purpose.

We will confer with the sponsoring AD on possible amendments to the
Community Considerations in our draft. (Based on previous feedback, this
section has been kept relatively short and concise.)

Kind regards,
Miriam

[1]
  http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84600.html

--
Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte
Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail
irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und
vernichten Sie diese E-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte
Weitergabe dieser Mail oder von Teilen dieser Mail ist nicht gestattet.

Wir haben alle verkehrsüblichen Maßnahmen unternommen, um das Risiko der
Verbreitung virenbefallener Software oder E-Mails zu minimieren, dennoch
raten wir Ihnen, Ihre eigenen Virenkontrollen auf alle Anhänge an dieser
Nachricht durchzuführen. Wir schließen außer für den Fall von Vorsatz oder
grober Fahrlässigkeit die Haftung für jeglichen Verlust oder Schäden durch
virenbefallene Software oder E-Mails aus.

Jede von der Bank versendete E-Mail ist sorgfältig erstellt worden, dennoch
schließen wir die rechtliche Verbindlichkeit aus; sie kann nicht zu einer
irgendwie gearteten Verpflichtung zu Lasten der Bank ausgelegt werden.
______________________________________________________________________

This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you
are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error)
please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any
unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of  the material in this
e-mail or of parts hereof is strictly forbidden.

We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software
viruses but nevertheless advise you to carry out your own virus checks on
any attachment of this message. We accept no liability for loss or damage
caused by software viruses except in case of gross negligence or willful
behaviour.

Any e-mail messages from the Bank are sent in good faith, but shall not be
binding or construed as constituting any kind of obligation on the part of
the Bank.

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:06:21 -0500

Miriam,

> active on the urn-nid list did not share your concerns.

IETF operates a multi-round review process that encourages reviews of
drafts by people beyond the experts in the specific technology.

This review is an expected part of that process; I suggest that you
consult with your sponsoring AD (Barry) on any process concerns.

> been raised against the allocation of these Formal URN Namespaces.

For clarity, I am not opposed to the allocation of the namespace.  However,
I would like to see a Community Considerations section that is actually
responsive to RFC 3406's stated requirement.

[... snip ...]

> section has been kept relatively short and concise.)

Much of the contents of your response would be useful explanatory
text to add to the draft.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> On Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:39 AM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-bundesbank-eurosystem-namespace-02
> 
> 
> David,
>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:56:07 -0500

David: thank you for your review. I thought that

> Therefore we claim that a Formal URN Namespace is warranted for the

would be good material to add to the draft, it made the situation clear at least for me. And I did think the community section was a bit short.

Barry/Miriam, can you coordinate some suggested text before the IESG approval telechat on Thursday?

Jari

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 21:59:06 -0500 (EST)

> From: [email-masked]
> Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 15:38:33 +0100
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]

> active on the urn-nid list did not share your concerns.

I believe that you do not fully grasp the social dynamics -- the
de-facto constitution -- of the IETF.  In this instance, the "URN
experts" perform one round of evaluation of the proposal, from their
particular point of view.  But the approval of the IETF as a whole for
URN matters is not *delegated* to the URN experts; the IETF as a whole
must independently achieve consensus that this is a desirable
proposal.

In regard to the objections raised regarding the proposed namespace, I
will extract a portion of your message and then expand on it in a way
that I think expresses your intention, but in a way that more directly

> identified, and the URNs to be resolved on the public Internet.

What it seems to me that you are saying is that in the ordinary usage
of these URNs, they will be confined to particular VPNs that are
tightly associated with the Eurosystem.  (Of course, the usage may be
expanded in the future.)  But even initially, there are expected to be
situations where, at least for particular URNs and particular messages
containing those URNs, it is necessary to be able to identify in much
more public contexts that the URNs have particular defined
(standardized) meanings.

At least, this is the meaning I attribute to your use of
"transparency": that various facts can be established *to outsiders*.

And if it is true that the meanings of these URNs must be provable to
outsiders, outsiders who at least partially operate on the global
Internet, then this is a reason to establish a formal registration of
the URN namespace.

Dale