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

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> >
> > 1) Change the IANA rules for registering new states to Expert Review.
> > Specification Requires is overkill.  (Expert Review might be too, but I
> > didn't feel totally comfortable busting it down that far.  What do others
> > think?)
> >

> I think this is a good idea.  I think FCFS would also be adequate, and
> encourage the WG to use that.  The reason is that it's far better to
> encourage people to register status codes that they want to use, and not to
> put barriers in the way.  The usual reluctance to use FCFS is concern that
> people will register a bunch of garbage.  In fact, (1) this hasn't ever
> happened and (2) IANA would ask the IESG to intervene if they got a
> suspicious flood of registration requests.

I'm OK with moving to expert review, but the idea of going to FCFS makes me
pretty uncomfortable.

The problem here is that it's possible to think about MTA states in a lot of
different ways, some of which don't map well if at all onto actual
implementations. While the risk is low, I think expert review is needed to make
sure things stay sane.

> In any case, you're going to need to change the template if you don't
> require a specification.   I suggest this:

> OLD
> Specification: The specification document that defines the queue state
> being registered.

> NEW
> Specification: A pointer to a specification document that defines the queue
> state being registered, if one exists; else, a more detailed description of
> the queue state, to aid in interoperable usage.

Sounds about right to me.

				Ned