Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [urn] Review: draft-martin-urn-globus-02

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:15:16 +0000

Thanks, Joel.

Authors, any responses to this? I think we need to discuss this…

Jari

On 12 Feb 2016, at 00:26, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-martin-urn-globus-02
>    A URN Namespace for Globus
> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
> Review Date: 11-Feb-2016
> IETF LC End Date: 9-March-2016
> IESG Telechat date: 17-March-2016
> 
> Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as an informational RFC.
> 
> This reviewer assumes that the appropriate message has been or will be sent to [email-masked].
> 
> Major issues:
>    As per the pointer in this document to RFC 3406 section 4.3, this document is required to have a Namespace Considerations section which "outlines the perceived need for a new namespace (i.e., where existing namespaces fall short of the proposer's requirements)."  While there is a section called Namespace Considerations, what it lists is the envisioned usages, not the reasons existing name spaces are insufficient.
> 
> Minor issues: N/A
> 
> Nits/editorial comments: N/A
> 
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:50:58 -0400

What I'll say abut this, as responsible AD, is that the
almost-finished urnbis work has updated the registration procedure and
the registration template, and the "Namespace Considerations", along
with the requirement that it "outlines the perceived need for a new
namespace", is no longer there.  That update (see
draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn, Section 6.4 and Appendix A) is not
yet finished and so isn't official, but the intent is clear and the
last call of this document has been posted to the urnbis working group
for review against the old+new requirements.

My view is that we should not be too rigorous about this point at this stage.

Barry

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:57:17 -0400

I guess this is between Barry, Jari, and the IESG.

If it were me, it would seem that a document using a new and 
not-yet-approved process would require a normative reference to the new 
process, and could not take effect until the new process was approved.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:02:33 -0400

In general, I completely agree with you on that.  That's why I didn't
say we should use the new process, but, rather, that on the particular
point you raise, we shouldn't be that rigorous right now.

b

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>     As per the pointer in this document to RFC 3406 section 4.3, this
>>>> document is required to have a Namespace Considerations section which
>>>> "outlines the perceived need for a new namespace (i.e., where existing
>>>> namespaces fall short of the proposer's requirements)."  While there is a
>>>> section called Namespace Considerations, what it lists is the envisioned
>>>> usages, not the reasons existing name spaces are insufficient.
>>>>
>>>> Minor issues: N/A
>>>>

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:29:26 -0400

On 3/17/16 8:50 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> [...]

> process, and could not take effect until the new process was approved.

It seems that we can meet the current requirement by updating the draft
to state why Martin/Globus wants the namespace.  I.e., they must have
*some* reason.  Then per the new requirements, we can be relaxed
regarding what constitutes "sufficient" reasons for approval.

E.g., looking at the draft, I see in section 1:

   Globus creates unique identifiers which will be persisted in external
   systems, and which must be identifiable as references to Globus
   entities.

My guess is that this is why Martin/Globus are going to the effort to
register a namespace, and as such, it constitutes "the perceived need
for a new namespace (i.e., where existing namespaces fall short of the
proposer's requirements)."

Dale

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:37:57 +0000

(Adding the IESG)

I’m open to any solution in this matter. We could bypass the requirement. Or we could add a sentence either about the non-sufficiency of the current spaces, or about the upcoming change in process. Or we could add a reference to the new process.

What would you suggest, Barry?

Jari

---

From: Brendan McCollam <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:43:53 +0000

Hello all,

Thanks for your feedback. Speaking for Globus, we're open to making 
whatever changes the reviewers feel are necessary. If you'd be more 
comfortable with an extra line or two of justification in the "Namespace 
Considerations" section, we're happy to add that.

If we do make revisions, does the review process have to start over? Or 
can we proceed from this stage after addressing concerns?

Best,
Brendan McCollam

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:50:45 -0400

> Thanks for your feedback. Speaking for Globus, we're open to making whatever
> changes the reviewers feel are necessary. If you'd be more comfortable with
> an extra line or two of justification in the "Namespace Considerations"
> section, we're happy to add that.

OK, then let's go ahead and add that extra line or two (Dale's
suggestion is a fine one), and then there's no controversy.

> If we do make revisions, does the review process have to start over? Or can
> we proceed from this stage after addressing concerns?

Oh, no, no need to start anything over.  You just add text (and have a
look at Stephen Farrell's comment also when you do that), post a
revised I-D, and we continue from where we are.

Barry