Re: [apps-discuss] URI registry

[Tony Hansen <[e-mail]>]

On 2/10/2011 5:34 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> As a reviewer, I sometimes make a recommendation that is in the spirit 
> of the proposal even if not explicitly covered by the letter, but also 
> alerting the relevant IESG director if I do so.  I think this is very 
> much in the IETF spirit of "do the right thing".
>
> For the message header registry, there some "weasel words" to allow 
> some flexibility in section 4.4 that were intended to help circumvent 
> unnecessary process-wrangling, ending with "The IESG is the final 
> arbiter of any objection."
>
> It seems to me that if the IANA+reviewer make a visible disposition 
> that nobody objects to, the easiest thing is to just do it.
>
> I'm not sure if it's necessary, but one might consider a minor update 
> up the registration RFC(s) to provide this lattitude more explicitly, 
> with further effort to be expended only in the event of an objection.  
> At some point, we need to trust the process participants (reserving 
> the option to verify), or we get nowhere.

+1