Being a person involved in the URN discussions (and one of the editors
of the RFC in question), I have the following comments:
On 27 feb 2008, at 18.29, IESG Secretary wrote:
> Since formal namespaces are often assigned to organizations that make
> assignments within the namespace, and the organization may add new
> sub-namespaces and functionality in the future, reviewers of URN
> Namespace applications cannot directly verify benefit, openness,
> uniqueness and persistence. Reviewers can only look at the
> organization's assurances that they will make assignments with those
> benefits or guarantees. Given the review that URN namespace
> applications already get, the current policy of the IESG is to follow
> the advice of the expert reviewer on approving such namespace
> applications.
When we wrote the text and thought about this, as far as I remember
this was actually the goal. That the final namespace should not be
closed, have a benefit, be unique and of course be persistent. If that
goal in reached directly or indirectly obviously we did not think
about enough (else this change was not needed), but for me the overall
goal is reached also with this suggested indirect review mechanism.
> The IESG suggests that a change to RFC3406 to reduce the overhead of
> these namespace applications might also be desirable.
I strongly support this clarification of the process.
Patrik
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf