Re: IANA Considerations Re: LC model draft draft-ietf-forces-model-07.txt

Following up on Tom's suggestion, it looks like we should use a name 
space along the lines of
     urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:forcesModel-1.0
rather than what is in the document currently:
    http://ietf.org/forces/1.0/lfbmodel

Unless someone speaks up to tell me I am breaking something, that is 
what I will do.

Thank you,
Joel M. Halpern

At 04:17 AM 10/31/2006, tom.petch wrote:
>Whoops; I meant RFC4114, E.164 Number Mapping for the Extensible Provisioning
>Protocol, (not RFC4144), which gives an example of IANA considerations for the
>two urn: for an XML namespace and schema.
>
>My thanks to those who pointed this out to me off-list.
>
>Tom Petch
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "tom.petch" <[email protected]>
>To: "Patrick Droz" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
>Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 5:51 PM
>Subject: IANA Considerations Re: LC model draft draft-ietf-forces-model-07.txt
>
>
> > I just came across a source of inspiration for a form of words for the XML
> > namespace in the IANA Considerations.  I commend to you s6 of RFC4144.