[urn] Re: improved management of registration requests

Hi John,

Thanks for the feedback. I was unaware that IANA might be in the midst 
of retooling, so I will reach out to folks there - perhaps their 
thinking has evolved since I last spoke with them. It strikes me that 
something like this could be useful for other expert review teams, which 
I tried to emphasize in my conversations with IANA a few years ago.

Peter

On 2/4/25 5:18 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> 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]