Re: Registration request for urn:thread:

> Section 5.1 of RFC 8141 states:
>
>     Formal URN namespaces might be appropriate even when some
>     aspects are not fully open.  For example, a URN namespace might make
>     use of a fee-based, privately managed, or proprietary registry for
>     assignment of URNs in the URN namespace.  However, it might still
>     benefit some Internet users if the associated services have openly
>     published names.
>
> In this case, I would say that the letter of RFC 8141 overrides the 
> spirit of the IETF.

Indeed this section was the basis for including a privately managed (members-only) and non-public registry in the request. (Non-public, because viewing it requires accepting the EULA.)
There is a suggestion there to have at least the names - that are in the registry - published. That is something we could add as a requirement for any entries in the internal registry, if that helps?

The public version of the registry would be in a separate document that can be downloaded from www.threadgroup.org without providing a name or accepting a EULA. And each registered URN would provide the name and a short description also.
Something like the table provided by 3GPP (https://www.3gpp.org/3gpp-groups/core-network-terminals-ct/ct-wg1/uniform-resource-identifier-uri-list) for example.   It would then provide a link / doc-reference pointing into the non-public specification.

Esko