Subject: Re: A formal NID registration request

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:07:49 +0100 (MEZ)

Patrik,

on Thu, 16 Dec 2010 09:04:44 +0100, you wrote on URN-NID:

> Hi All,
>
> I have not seen anyone voluntarily review this request for a URN
>  namespace. Maybe I have missed some email.
>
> I'll try again, and explicitly, can someone interested in these
> issues please have a look at the application?

My apologies for lack of attention, but more or less, initially I've
been waiting for an I-D to be submitted, and recently my IETF time
quorum has been dedicated to the initial urnbis drafts that now
all are out.  (Please visit the URNbis WG home page at
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/urnbis/ and follow the links to the drafts).

RFC 3406 as well as the current RFC 3406bis draft require an RFC for
a formal URN Namespace registration, so an I-D is needed anyway.
The process had -- and will continue to have -- provisions for URN-NID
review before publication request for the I-D to the IESG, so I assume
the original solicitation of comments was an "early review" request.

Quoting from the updated Section 4.3 of
draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-00:

----snip----

4.3.  Formal Namespaces

   Formal NIDs are assigned via IETF Review, as defined in BCP 26
   [RFC5226].  The designated expert(s) for URN namespace registrations
   are nominated by the IESG, and their role adheres to the regulations
   in BCP 26, unless specified otherwise below.

   This means that the Formal NID application is made via submission to
   the IETF of an Internet-Draft that contains the namespace definition
   and targets publication as an RFC of Informational or Standards Track
   category, which needs to be approved by the IESG after performing an
   IETF Last Call on the document and evaluating review comments.  The
   applicant can be an individual or an IETF working group, in alignment
   with the designation of the Internet-Draft.

   Before publication can be requested, however, the draft namespace
   specification document must undergo an Expert Review process
   [RFC5226] pursuant to the guidelines written here (as well as
   standard RFC publication guidelines).  [...]

----snip----

(RFC 3406 contained almost equivalent wording based on RFC 2434;
the above is updated to be based on its successor, RFC 5226.)

I'll try to catch up with my backlog of URN namespace definition
drafts to be reviewed in January.

Kind regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+