Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-received-state

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:14 AM, SM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > In Section 6.2:
> >
> >  "Use:  One of "current" (the state keyword is in current use),
> >      "deprecated" (the state keyword is in use but not recommended for
> >      new implementations), or "historic" (the state keyword is no
> >      longer in substantial current use).
> >
> > The draft does not mention anything about how "deprecated" or "historic"
> > are to be handed.  If the WG decides for FCFS, for example, how will the
> > "Use" be handled?
> >
> >

> Well now that's an interesting question.  Can we say something like "FCFS,
> except IANA should probably check with ADs when they receive requests for
> status changes"?  Has that been done before?

AFAIK the answer is no, but OTOH IANA has been asked to implement policies
of some complexity up to and including the original media types registration
process without involving a Designated Expert.

That said, it's been my observation that the more you tell IANA to do, the
slower the process becomes, especially when what you're telling them to make
some sort of assessment. Additionally, and speaking from experience, ADs
are very busy people, so don't expect them to handle such queries in a very
timely way.

I can't help but think you're stirring up quite a pother in order to avoid
having a Designated Expert.

				Ned