Subject: [urn] draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition-07 just posted

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 08:43:20 -0400

Hi.  With 2141bis published as RFC 8141, I believe the WG has
one more significant task, to finish up the transition document
for ISBNs, ISSNs, and, to some extent, NBNs.  That is largely
housekeeping work and should not be controversial.  

draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition-07 has been posted; I hope
it is ready, or nearly ready, for WGLC.

This version reflects one major change as compared to -06
(posted in March 2016) and earlier versions.  Those drafts
assumed that this document would be published simultaneously
with 2141bis, necessitating inclusion of sample templates and
language about the relationship between those templates and
actual registrations, all of which turned out to be confusing
and potentially very long.  Because 2141bis has been published
and the new procedures are therefore in place, the relevant
templates will be submitted to IANA within the next few days,
the convoluted text has been removed and replaced by
(temporarily forward-pointing) references to the IANA
registrations, and the text cleaned up in other places to
correspond.

The NBN spec was taken off the WG's agenda some time ago, so
promises about it have been removed from this draft.  I have
been helping Juha with that draft and hope in will be posted in
the next few weeks, but do not expect it to become a WG work
item again.

There is also some of the usual editorial work (thanks to Barry,
Peter, and Juha) but none of it should be substantive.

Please review so we can get this phase in URN development
wrapped up.

best,
   john

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 16:06:17 -0400

> it is ready, or nearly ready, for WGLC.

As I agree that it's ready for WGLC, and as it seems silly to say
"Everyone please review it and let us know if it's ready," and then to
have a separate WGLC...

This will put draft-ietf-urnbis-ns-reg-transition-07 into Working
Group Last Call for four weeks, ending on D-Day (6 June, for the
historically challenged).  Everyone is urged to give this one more
review -- as John says, it should be non-controversial housekeeping,
but another review pass by a few sets of eyes and a nose or three is
always useful.

If you review it and see no issues, please say that on the list also.

Barry, as chair

> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 18:43:24 -0400

A minor WGLC comment:
IDnits complains that the references to RFCs 3044 and 3187 have no
citations.  It's not a big deal, but I suggest fixing that by turning
the parenthesized items at the start of Section 2 into formal
citations.

Barry

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 09:01:18 -0400

Sorry, should have caught that.  That was almost certainly the
result of rearranging the text too many times.  Fixed in -08
(which I'm not going to repost for this unless someone
specifically asks).

    john

--On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 18:43 -0400 Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> A minor WGLC comment:
> IDnits complains that the references to RFCs 3044 and 3187
> have no citations.  It's not a big deal, but I suggest fixing
> that by turning the parenthesized items at the start of
> Section 2 into formal citations.