[urn] Re: improved management of registration requests

Peter,

Seems to me that this is The Right Thing to do under the
circumstances, but that IANA, especially since they seem to be doing
some retooling, or the Tools Team should be pushed to deal with this.
In addition to the obvious advantage of having this go through, and
be visible to, them, it would provide a linkage between an approved
URN application and the application, steps, and discussion that led
to its approval.

   john


--On Tuesday, February 4, 2025 15:39 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> This message is mostly for discussion among the expert review team,
> but I'm sending it to the public list for greater transparency.
> 
> At times, we (mostly I as the team lead) have forgotten to take
> action on registration requests, as just happened with the `c2pa`
> namespace. This is not the quality of service we owe to the
> community.
> 
> A few years ago I asked IANA whether they plan to offer
> infrastructure so that expert review teams can better manage
> registration requests. They had no such plans at the time, but we
> could pursue the relevant tools independently. The path I have in
> mind is that we could set up a GitHub repository in conformance
> with RFC 8874 and RFC 8875 (although this group is no longer an
> official IETF Working Group, because it grew out of the URN WG the
> guidance specified in those documents would still seem relevant).
> 
> Here is my perspective:
> 
> (1) we would use such a repository primarily for issue tracking
> 
> (2) discussion of substantive matters regarding registration
> requests would still happen on this list
> 
> (3) we might want to keep registration requests under source
> control, for several reasons:
> 
> (a) this might make it easier to work with (some) registrants,
> especially regarding less than substantive matters
> 
> (b) this might make it easier to work on version 2+ of namespace
> registrations
> 
> (c) I usually reformat approved registration requests before final
> submission to IANA (for instance to keep line lengths to 72
> characters and to ensure consistency across registrations); it
> would be better if these changes, though relatively minor, were
> done in the open
> 
> (d) source control is good :-)
> 
> I'm curious what other expert review team members, and community
> members in general, think of this idea.
> 
> Peter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]


_______________________________________________
urn mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]