Re: [apps-discuss] URI registry

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> [Responding one more time here because this is a metadiscussion]

[Ditto, and also maybe affects the header registry 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864)]

What happened to "rough consensus and running code"?

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.

#g
--