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

I would suggest
...ns:forces:model:...
that is set up a forces namespace for all to use with one branch being the
model.

I see other WGs specifying :model:1.0 and opposed to :model-1.0 and while I
understand the literal difference, I find to hard to see how this will play out
in the longer term.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:32 PM
Subject: 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.