Subject: Informal URN Namespace Registration Request

From: Brendan McCollam <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 12:10:02 -0600

Dear Sir or Madam:

Please find attached our request for an Informal URN Namespace 
Registration, as detailed in RFC3406.

Sincerely,
Brendan McCollam

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:52:34 -0500

> globus-urn-registration.txt

It looks reasonable to me.

Dale

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:11:07 -0700

> Registration, as detailed in RFC3406.

Why not register urn:globus as a formal namespace? It seems strange for 
all of the URNs to be of the form urn:urn-8:globus:*

Peter

---

From: Brendan McCollam <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:18:33 -0600

We were considering that. Unfortunately we're on a very tight schedule 
with release deadlines before 2016, and we thought that the informal 
registration process might proceed faster.

Is there any process in place for "upgrading" an informal registration 
to a formal one at a later date?

Brendan

On 11/17/2015 11:11 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Why not register urn:globus as a formal namespace? It seems strange 
> for all of the URNs to be of the form urn:urn-8:globus:*
>
> Peter
>
>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:49:06 -0700

> registration process might proceed faster.

That is no doubt the case. We are trying to make the registration 
process easier all around but that work is proceeding very slowly 
because of wrangling over the non-registration aspects of URNs:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn/

> to a formal one at a later date?

No, you would need to register a new namespace. And upgrading from 
informal to formal (or more generally from one namespace identifier to 
another) is somewhat at odds with the philosophy that URNs are supposed 
to be permanent...

Peter

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:49:18 -0700

Peter

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 02:56:37 +0900

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Brendan McCollam <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Is there any process in place for "upgrading" an informal registration to
> a formal one at a later date?
>
>
​That would change the string associated with nid, unfortunately.

Ted​

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:09:38 -0500

> all of the URNs to be of the form urn:urn-8:globus:*

Technically, it would be better to remove the "globus" part, because it
adds no information.  But that may not be feasible from a business point
of view.

Dale

---

From: Brendan McCollam <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:51:05 -0600

Thanks to everyone for the feedback we've received. We've decided that 
we are going to abandon this informal registration request, and instead 
submit a formal registration request in the near future.

Thank you all for your time.

Brendan

On 11/17/2015 11:49 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> another) is somewhat at odds with the philosophy that URNs are 
> supposed to be permanent...
>
> Peter
>
>>
>> Brendan
>>