Greetings,

No, you do not have to have a new version before the expiration.  If
you upload a new version after expiration,  things should work.  If
you have trouble, you can email the new version to the secretariat,
and they can post it as an update for you.

regards,

Ted Hardie

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Enrico Francesconi
<francesconi@ittig.cnr.it> wrote:
> Dear Sirs,
>    thank you very much for your feedback. Before going on with a more
> detailed answer to your suggestions, we would like to ask you if we have to
> upload again the current version, since this Internet Draft is going to
> expire on April 4th, 2013. In fact a new draft including changes following
> your remarks probably will not be uploaded before April, 4th.
>
> Thanks a lot
> best regards
>
>    Enrico and Pierluigi
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> ITTIG - CNR
> Institute of Legal Information Theory and Techniques
> Italian National Research Council
>
> Via de' Barucci 20
> 50127 Florence
> Italy
>
> Tel: +39 055 4399665
> Fax: +39 055 4399605
> email: francesconi@ittig.cnr.it
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> On 27/mar/13, at 18:57, Ted Hardie wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> I note that this document uses ISO3166-1 alpha 2 as the common source
> of jurisdiction codes; these codes are subject to re-assignment, if I
> understand it correctly, and some have been re-assigned (e.g. AI).
> How would the namespace authority handle such a re-assignment?
>
> The document also says this:
>
>
>   In order to keep editing and communication more simple and to avoid
>   character percent-encoding, it is strongly recommended that national
>   characters and diacritic signs are turned into base characters (e.g.,
>   the Italian term "sanitU+00E0" converted into "sanita", the French
>   term "ministU+00E8re" converted into "ministere"). Otherwise, the
>   characters have to be percent-encoded according to the UTF-8
>   character encoding [STD63] (e.g., "sanitU+00E0" encoded into
>   "sanit%C3%A1").
>   Anyway each country or jurisdiction decides the uniform names
>   encoding modality of all the sources of law issued within its
>   territory.
>
> The recommendation to use "base characters" does not work for
> languages where the base character set is not permitted according to
> the URN syntax.  Within the EU context, Greek would face this problem;
> the extension of this system to China, Japan, or Korea would represent
> similar challenges.  Having a common method seems essentially required
> for successful parsing, but matching will be a challenge even so,
> because of the issue that characters which are considered equivalent
> in one jurisdiction may not be so in others.  If a straight
> string-match on the encoded characters is sufficient, this can be
> worked around, but it implies that the namespace authorities will need
> strict canonicalization rules.  Is that within the scope of this
> effort?
>
> Reading through this, I am greatly concerned that the attempt to
> create a system which is applies to each national legal system but is
> not obviously delegated to them will result in reference issues.  I am
> particularly concerned by the implications for countries with multiple
> national languages; if a country which allows multiple languages, the
> choice of which to use for sub jurisdictions seems fraught with
> political impact.  Making them parallel without the input of the
> jurisdiction seems, unfortunately, to create reference integrity
> problems.
>
> An alternative approach is for the relevant national authority to
> create a namespace and to use that to include legal documents if they
> wish (New Zealand, for example, has created a URN namespace).  Why is
> that not the preferable approach here?
>
> best regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
>
>
> On 27/mar/13, at 18:55, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
> On 27 mar 2013, at 18:08, Enrico Francesconi <francesconi@ittig.cnr.it>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
>   as per RFC 3406, we are requesting a two-week review for a formal URN
> namespace (LEX) related to "Sources of Law". The
>
> I-D application for our formal URN NID request is available at:
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-spinosa-urn-lex
>
> Since this Internet Draft is going to expire on April 4th, 2013, we would
> kindly ask you if, meanwhile, we have to upload the draft again (even if no
> changes have been made with respect to the current version (v.07)).
>
>
> I have a few comments on this namespace, which I in general believe is a
> Very Good Idea:
>
> 1. Non-allocated TLD .LEX
>
> I object to use of the non-allocated TLD .LEX
>
> 2. Casing
>
> The text in section 3.3 must be much more clear as there is nothing called
> case insensitivity globally. Instead it must be clear whether the
> identifiers are lower case or upper case of whatever base string is chosen,
> and whether the base string or its case folded equivalent is to be used in
> the identifier.
>
> More generically, it must be decided what normalisation form strings should
> be in to be used as tokens in this URN.
>
> 3. Use of Unicode codepoints
>
> I do not think the full Unicode codespace should be allowed, even if the
> codepoints are %-encoded
>
> 4. Sub namespaces
>
> Is there an intention to have a registry for for example <authority>?
>
> 5. Language tags
>
> I think you should refer to BCP-47 instead of ISO 639-1.
>
> 6. Mapping from lex namespace tokens to DNS tokens
>
> What is to be made when/if the lex namespace token include non-ascii?
>
> 7. Algorithm for the DNS resolution
>
> In addition to [6], I see there is a mapping from '.' to '-'. Is there some
> formal syntax to be included?
>
> 8. Bidirectionality
>
> There is no mention of potential implications of bidirectional codepoints,
> and/or the general directionality of the lex identifier itself.
>
>   Patrik
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Enrico Francesconi
> <francesconi@ittig.cnr.it> wrote:
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
>   as per RFC 3406, we are requesting a two-week review for a formal URN
>
> namespace (LEX) related to "Sources of Law". The I-D application for our
>
> formal URN NID request is available at:
>
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-spinosa-urn-lex
>
>
> Since this Internet Draft is going to expire on April 4th, 2013, we would
>
> kindly ask you if, meanwhile, we have to upload the draft again (even if no
>
> changes have been made with respect to the current version (v.07)).
>
>
>
> Thank you very much
>
>
> best regards
>
>
>   Pierluigi Spinosa and Enrico Francesconi
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> ITTIG - CNR
>
> Institute of Legal Information Theory and Techniques
>
> Italian National Research Council
>
>
> Via de' Barucci 20
>
> 50127 Florence
>
> Italy
>
>
> Tel: +39 055 4399665
>
> Fax: +39 055 4399605
>
> email: francesconi@ittig.cnr.it
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>