Subject: [urn] URN Namespace specification document - in acordance with draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-00

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 14:03:46 +0200

Hello all,

There is an issue in draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-00 that 
should be solved, I think. What I mean is that this document says that 
URN namespaces can be specified as by Standards Track RFCs, as well as 
by Informational ones. So there is a problem - the draft does not 
mention what criteria should the NS registration meet to be specified by 
Standards Track or Informational. A possible situation: an Informational 
RFC is submitted directly to RFC Editor and in this way does not go 
through LC procedure, as mentioned by the rfc3406bis. There should be 
such issues discussed in the draft, I think. So does anyone has any 
ideas about this?

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:35:56 +0100 (MEZ)

Mykyta,

> such issues discussed in the draft, I think. So does anyone has any

IMO there's no issue.

Your concerns are clearly addressed by the text in the draft:

|3.3.  Formal Namespaces
|
|  A formal namespace may be requested, and IETF review sought, in cases
|  where the publication of the NID proposal and the underlying
|  namespace will provide benefit to some subset of users on the
|  Internet.  That is, a formal NID proposal, if accepted, must be
|  functional on and with the global Internet, [...]

and

|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.

Please revisit RFC 5226 for the definition of "IETF Review".

Additionally, the last paragraph of the IANA Considerations in Sect.6
of the draft says once more, and in other words:

   In all cases of new namespace registration proposals, the IANA should
   provisionally assign the appropriate NID (informal or formal), as
   described throughout the body of this memo, once an IESG-designated
   expert has confirmed that the requisite registration process steps
|  have been completed.  These registrations become permanent and can be
|  made publicly available once the registration document has been
|  approved by the IESG for publications as a Standards Track or
|  Informational RFC.

Therefore, the draft leaves no option to advance a specification
document for a Formal URN Namespace to RFC using the Independent
Submission stream via the ISE.  The IESG cannot "approve" an IS
draft, it only has to perform an evaluation according to RFC 5742.

Note that so far, with a single exception (RFC 4122), all Formal URN
Namespace registrations have been performed via Informational RFCs
over the IETF stream; RFC 4122 is only one on the Standards Track.

The decision between Informational and Standards Track is up to the
submitters.  The URNbis WG is chartered to bring successors for RFCs
3044, 3187, and 3188 on the Standards Track, but that does not bind
other stakeholders in any way for future namespace specifications.

Kind regards,
  Alfred.