Operations » Editor

This is headed for public comment (gbn)

Is now in public comment: http://ogf.org/gf/docs/?public_comment

Richard will send the authors a note, suggesting this should be CP instead. If so, it will extend public comment for a further 30 days.

Quoting GFD.191 :

The Open Grid Forum delegates parts of its namespace urn:ogf: by assigning subnamespace identifiers (SNIDs). The formal application for an SNID is made via publication of a Grid Forum Document (GFD). The GFD should be an Informational Document, and must be published according to the normal procedure as described in [GFD.152] or its successor.

So this document should be an Informational Document.

This document does not seem to be written as a formal application for an SNID, but more as a community practice one. Furthermore, GFD.191 does not seem to provide for an approval process for such an application, so publication approval by the GFSG for an OGF Informational document would seem to be the only mechanism for approval of such an application.

The document appears to be trying to accomplish more than one purpose.

I have no strong preference, but wonder about the argument why it should be a CP. It is a formal request to delegate part of the namespace. Personally, that almost seems like a standard ("this namespace MUST be used in this-and-that way"). There are two arguments to make it informational: that's what GFD.191 says, and that's what's common in the IETF for namespace delegation.

That said, these arguments are not very strong. Are there guidelines what each type of document entails? What is the difference between ID and CP?

Alan, you say that "The document appears to be trying to accomplish more than one purpose." What purposes do you see, and would you have split that in two documents in retrospect. I'm not suggesting that I'm going to rewrite this time, but from this discussion I get the impression that I could have done a better job for both GFD.191 and this document, and like to learn what I could have improved.

Link to public comments: https://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/comment.php?id=390

There is an anonymous comment stating: 'RFC2141 says "location-independent" not "globally unique". These are not the same; the extension in semantics should be discussed and justified.'.
I agree that these are different, but am not sure what changes are required to the document.

Also -- the pubic is now out of public comment, is that correct now that it should be a 60-day period?

Authors/editors, there are some comments in the public comment tracker for you to look at. Please respond in that tracker or this one. If needed, you can make revisions to the document prior to the next step in the publication process, which is final standards council review.

Oops! Cc'ing Andre to take a look at this. It sounds like permissions
are not set quite correctly. Sorry for the trouble (and thanks for
being the first person to try this!).

-- Greg

Hi Freek,

Thanks for the note -- can you please give me some more info, so that
I can debug this?

I just created a brand new user, which is member of no project, no
special privileges, etc, and can access the forum just fine, and also
can comment. So, I must have screwed up some other settings which are
not readily obvious to me..

How did you reach the forum -- via Greg's link, or by navigating there
in redmine?
What is the exact link you are having a problem with?
Are there any other pages on redmine you had trouble with lately?

Thanks, Andre.