A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for Examples
RFC 6963

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Barry Leiba Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2013-04-09 for -04)
No email
send info
Christer Holmberg made this comment:

Editorial nits: Section 2.6 contains the word “counseled”. While not wrong, is there a reason why more common IETF language can’t be used here? E.g. “recommended against”, or something? :)

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

Comment (2013-04-09 for -04)
No email
send info
Like others, I don't find the analogy to "X-" headers appropriate.  That is, it doesn't really seem like the arguments against "x-" in RFC 6648 really apply here.  By that analogy, you would be expecting example URNs to leak into standards-like usage, which it seems like you are expressly not trying to do here. The better analogy would be to RFC 3849 -- things you never would expect to see in the real Internet.

That said, this URN namespace is a fine thing to have.

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2013-04-09 for -04)
No email
send info
I think I am more confused by Stephen's comments than the text itself.

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2013-04-20)
No email
send info
Thanks Peter for addressing my DISCUSS-DISCUSS

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2013-04-04 for -04)
No email
send info
I have no objection to the publication of this document.

In your position:
- I would not have sent this out as a BCP, but would have made it
  standards track as it allocates "codepoints"
- I would have tidied the Abstract to remove "and the like" possibly
  replacing it with something more specific if there is anything that
  can be said.
- Not have encouraged "private testing" using the "example" namespace.
  If an experimental namespace is needed, I think it should exist 
  separately.

That said, I don't have a strong enough opinon on any of these three
points to do more than flage them for consideration.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2013-04-06 for -04)
No email
send info
- I was confusd a bit by this, (before I asked Barry:-)  Its
not clear when or if its ok for this BCP to be used as the
basis for an IESG DICSUSS.  I think it'd be great if this
spec were more clear that its entirely ok to use
"urn:example:foo" in almost all cases without anyone having
to register "foo" with IANA. And that'd imply that it'd not
be ok for an AD to put on a DISCUSS saying "you need to go
register foo as a sub-namespace with IANA before using
urn:example:foo"

- section 4: Why does the NSS *need* to be a unique string?
I suggest s/needs to/is best as/ Section 2.6 gets this
right I think though.

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2013-04-08 for -04)
No email
send info
I am ambivalent about whether this is appropriate for PS or BCP. Other points made by the Farrel(l)s seem reasonable to consider.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection