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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 6/8/2012 4:24 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
>> The justification for expert is "quality control". The side-effect
>> is a disincentive to register.
>
> Er, not really. From a registrant's point of view the process is
> essentially the same with or without expert review: Fill in a form,
> submit it, wait for a response.

Whether, that's not correct.  The structure isn't even the same.

When there is review, there is a sub-process that is absent from FCFS. 
That's a significant difference in form.





> What matters is the *content* of the form and the *timliness* of the
>  response.

Right.  And since we don't to empty processes, the process entails 
dealing with that review, either by the potentially chilling effect of 
spending significant time trying to anticipate objections and respond to 
them, or in reactively responding to actual concerns of the reviewer.

Hence, both the politics and the effort are substantially different.


> And I'm not seeing overly onerous content requirements here.

Of course not.  You're an informed and reasonable guy.  Not all 
reviewers are like that.  And not all submitters know enough to 
anticipate the concerns of reviewers.


So the
> only factor is whether or not an expert can be found that can review
> in a timely way. If that proves to be impossible then maybe FCFS
> makes sense, but if not I'd prefer to see expert review remain.

But this assumes a point I'm suggesting we consider carefully:  Having 
the process of finding the reviewer and managing the review process 
isn't free.  These are not like alternative routing algorithms: 
screwups have contained damage.  That makes the cost/benefit tradeoff 
questionable.


>> Do we make it easier and let in some cruft along with the good
>> stuff or do we make it harder and keep out some good stuff because
>> registering is too much hassle?
>
> In this particular case cruft has a potential negative consequence:
> Someone looks at the registry and says "why doesn't your product
> produce this state". And they may not like the response that the
> state doesn't make a lick of sense.

the word 'might' undermines the strength of this point.


>> I think the latter is the better choice, because the cruft doesn't
>> actually hurt anything and there's a very, very large namespace
>> that can afford to be wasted.
>
>> As Barry notes, the actual 'threat' is quite small and the damage
>> from its being realized is also negligible.
>
> The threat is indeed very small. Not so sure about the damage.

I think the strategic media content threat is from bad media types, not 
bad registrations.  By bad media types, I mean bad technologies that get 
into a position of market leverage.  And we can't do anything about them.

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net