Re: Registration request for urn:thread:

Esko Dijk <[email protected]> writes:
>> 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.

Given what Peter and Lars have said (and what RFC 8141 says!), I agree
that this is a reasonable solution to all of these concerns.

Dale