- From: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
- Date: 07 Oct 2003 18:29:37 -0400
- To: Eric Hellman <eric@openly.com>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
On Tue, 2003-10-07 at 17:45, Eric Hellman wrote: > urn > rigorous requirements but the real hurdle with urn is to get IETF > consensus. Which is proving to be a fairly easy thing to do. At present we have the following registered IDs: IETF [RFC2648] PIN [RFC3043] ISSN [RFC3044] OID [RFC3061] NEWSML [RFC3085] OASIS [RFC3121] XMLORG [RFC3120] publicid [RFC3151] ISBN [RFC3187] NBN [RFC3188] WEB3D [RFC3541] MPEG [RFC3614] mace [RFC-hazelton-mace-urn-namespace-02.txt] fipa [RFC3616] swift [RFC3615] I submitted the 'liberty' NID proposal and the process once I submitted it to the NID list was completely comment free. The time between request and approval was about 1 month total. The RFC Editor will probably publish it shortly. Its a heck of a lot faster than the MIME types registration process. ;-) > IETF lapses most URN proposals and doesn't promote or use > the ones it does. What do you mean by 'lapses'? All of the proposals except 'tag' and some where the project dropped off the face of the earth have made it through the process. The IETF is using the 'ietf' space fairly heavily, especially as it concerns the XML registry defined in draft-mealling-iana-xmlns-registry-05.txt. Presently the standards waiting on is publication are simple, provreg, and sipping (those are the ones the RFC Editor has, there are more I think). The identifiers have been assigned and the processes are in place. If there is some confusion on that process let me know and I'll make sure it gets clarified or straightened out.... -MM
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2003 18:30:31 UTC