[urn] Proposing a way forward re: GLUE and "third-party" registration

I see in the History tab of the Datatracker page regarding this I-D:

    2026-03-05
    Roman Danyliw	
    [Ballot discuss]
    ** For the responsible AD and WG Chairs: could the alignment of this
       document and the chartered scope of the SPICE WG be explained.
       Per charter-ietf-spice-01
       (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-spice/01/):

    -- There are no milestones associated with the WG to hint that this
       document was an approved scope

    -- The program of work lists three items, none of which appear to
       align with this document:

    [chopped]

It seems to be agreed among the URN DE committee that it does not at
present have authority to perform a "third-party" registration, that is,
to register a URN namespace, or part of one, that largely incorporates
an identifier system controlled by a different organization than the one
requesting the registration.

It also seems to be a substantial point in the IESG that the Spice WG
charter contains no items covering draft-ietf-spice-glue-id.  That means
that in order for the I-D to progress, at a minimum the IESG needs to
enlarge the Spice WG charter.  Specifically, the I-D cannot just advance
through the usually-routine approval of an I-D that has been approved by
the WG.

So I suggest that the committee buck the issue of "third-party"
registrations up to the IESG as a part of its agenda item regarding the
I-D.  This will allow the IESG to consider all aspects of the current
situation as a whole, and (either by its decision or inaction) provide
guidance to the DE committee regarding future "third-party"
registrations.

It appears that this has already been done at least in part, as the
Ballot Discuss listed above includes:

    ** "IANA is NOT OK" -- The URN registration was not sent out in
       advance of this document being on the docket, but more
       importantly, the DE has significant feedback.

In particular, I think it is proper for the Chair (IIRC, Peter has this
role), unless he has already done so, to forward our general concerns
via the AD(s) that supervise this committee to the IESG, specifically
marked as interacting with the consideration of
draft-ietf-spice-glue-id.

Of course, this is very "heavy-weight" from the point of view of the
authors of the I-D and the Spice WG generally, but given that the I-D is
already being held up in the IESG, this is probably the fastest way
forward that can be achieved -- it will put all the issues in front of
the IESG together, and likely produce clear guidance for the DE
committee.

Dale

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