Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace Registration Transition
RFC 8254

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Alexey Melnikov) Yes

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

(Deborah Brungard) No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2017-08-02)
No email
send info
I have a different take on Adam's discuss point. I don't think its appropriate for this draft to both obsolete 3044 and 3187 and make them historical. This draft doesn't replace them. And since IANA may have to deal with a mix of old and new templates for some transition period, it doesn't remove the need for them. 

Instead, I think it would make more sense for this draft to just change their status to historical, but not obsolete them. And also mention that in the abstract :-) .

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

(Mirja K├╝hlewind) No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

(Eric Rescorla) No Objection

(Adam Roach) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

Comment (2017-08-07)
No email
send info
The text in the RFC editor note looks fine to me. If you'd like to work with the author to refine the phrasing, I'm okay with variations in how this is worded.