Miriam, > We have been surprised by your concerns regarding the application for a > Formal URN Namespace, which we'd have expected being raised by someone > during the two stages of URN-NID Expert Review the draft has undergone > since August 2013. Apparently, the URN experts > active on the urn-nid list did not share your concerns. IETF operates a multi-round review process that encourages reviews of drafts by people beyond the experts in the specific technology. This review is an expected part of that process; I suggest that you consult with your sponsoring AD (Barry) on any process concerns. > The (prospective) 'eurosystem' URN Namespace is modeled after the very > similar 'swift' Formal URN namespace registered per RFC 3615, and there > have been allocated quite a couple of other Formal URN Namespaces to > national institutions and international treaty organizations, which seem to > have similar usage profiles; we are not aware of similar arguments having > been raised against the allocation of these Formal URN Namespaces. For clarity, I am not opposed to the allocation of the namespace. However, I would like to see a Community Considerations section that is actually responsive to RFC 3406's stated requirement. [... snip ...] > We will confer with the sponsoring AD on possible amendments to the > Community Considerations in our draft. (Based on previous feedback, this > section has been kept relatively short and concise.) Much of the contents of your response would be useful explanatory text to add to the draft. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: miriam.ortseifen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:miriam.ortseifen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > On Behalf Of iso20022@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:39 AM > To: Black, David > Cc: gen-art@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; urn-nid@xxxxxxxx; iso20022@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-bundesbank-eurosystem-namespace-02 > > > David, > > thanks for the Gen-ART review [1] you have performed on our draft, and our > apologies for the delay in responding to it. > > We have been surprised by your concerns regarding the application for a > Formal URN Namespace, which we'd have expected being raised by someone > during the two stages of URN-NID Expert Review the draft has undergone > since August 2013. Apparently, the URN experts > active on the urn-nid list did not share your concerns. > > The (prospective) 'eurosystem' URN Namespace is modeled after the very > similar 'swift' Formal URN namespace registered per RFC 3615, and there > have been allocated quite a couple of other Formal URN Namespaces to > national institutions and international treaty organizations, which seem to > have similar usage profiles; we are not aware of similar arguments having > been raised against the allocation of these Formal URN Namespaces. > > 'eurosystem' URNs will be used together with already standardized URNs, in > particular ISO Std 20022 URNs; it is important for their use that the role > of these URNs and the authority behind these URNs be easily and clearly > identified, and be at a perceived "equivalent" standards level -- parallel > to the 'swift' URNs that are managed by an older international treaty > organization with similar purpose but smaller scope and less consumer > friendly targets (regarding timeliness of transaction execution and cost > effectiveness). Therefore, an Informal URN Namespace would not meet the > target objectives of the supporting countries and financial institutions. > > Admittedly, it is true that, at the first stage of usage of the > 'eurosystem' namespace, the mass production use of the assigned URNs will > be contained in messages carried in cryptographic digital envelopes or > Vitual Private Networks. However, the transparency requirements (needed > for establishing and maintaining public trust into the subject financial > transaction systems), open software development processes, and software > deployment require the origin and authority for the URNs to be easily > identified, and the URNs to be resolved on the public Internet. > Therefore we claim that a Formal URN Namespace is warranted for the > intended purpose. > > We will confer with the sponsoring AD on possible amendments to the > Community Considerations in our draft. (Based on previous feedback, this > section has been kept relatively short and concise.) > > Kind regards, > Miriam > > > [1] > http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg84600.html > > -- > Diese E-Mail enthält vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschützte > Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail > irrtümlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und > vernichten Sie diese E-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte > Weitergabe dieser Mail oder von Teilen dieser Mail ist nicht gestattet. > > Wir haben alle verkehrsüblichen Maßnahmen unternommen, um das Risiko der > Verbreitung virenbefallener Software oder E-Mails zu minimieren, dennoch > raten wir Ihnen, Ihre eigenen Virenkontrollen auf alle Anhänge an dieser > Nachricht durchzuführen. Wir schließen außer für den Fall von Vorsatz oder > grober Fahrlässigkeit die Haftung für jeglichen Verlust oder Schäden durch > virenbefallene Software oder E-Mails aus. > > Jede von der Bank versendete E-Mail ist sorgfältig erstellt worden, dennoch > schließen wir die rechtliche Verbindlichkeit aus; sie kann nicht zu einer > irgendwie gearteten Verpflichtung zu Lasten der Bank ausgelegt werden. > ______________________________________________________________________ > > This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you > are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) > please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any > unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this > e-mail or of parts hereof is strictly forbidden. > > We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software > viruses but nevertheless advise you to carry out your own virus checks on > any attachment of this message. We accept no liability for loss or damage > caused by software viruses except in case of gross negligence or willful > behaviour. > > Any e-mail messages from the Bank are sent in good faith, but shall not be > binding or construed as constituting any kind of obligation on the part of > the Bank. >