[urn] Re: improved management of registration requests

On 2/13/25 7:42 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> writes:
>> 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).
> 
> I haven't thought about this much.  But...
> 
> - I can see real value in having a publicly-visible tracker (or some such)
>    of open requests and the conversation about them.  Not just for the
>    submitters and the "public" but also for our own reference.
> 
>    (I have *no* familiarity with the facilities of a GitHub repository
>    other than its Git repository, so I can't make any recommendations.
>    Then again, isn't there some sort of IETF issue tracker?)

Good question.

I believe that the IETF Datatracker <https://datatracker.ietf.org/> is 
intended for use by active working groups, with the tracking function 
specifically used for documents (mainly I-Ds but also charters). 
However, I will inquire about whether it's possible for concluded groups 
(like URNBIS) to use the tracker, and to use the tracker for IANA 
registration requests. I'll post about this to the tools-discuss list.

> It seems like we might be able to use a fairly simple infrastructure:
> 
> - The current Mail Archive holds the conversations.
> 
> - A tracker that contains one item for each registration request and
>    some sort of pointer into the Mail Archive.
> 
> - A nag-o-matic e-mail generator that tells the chair -- or possibly
>    better, our whole list -- if no discussion/action has been taken on an
>    open item for e.g. one week.

Yes, something along those lines seems good. I'll investigate further 
and report back.

Peter


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