Re: [apps-discuss] FW: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-05.txt

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

> On 31 Mar 2015, at 19:10, Graham Klyne <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On 29/03/2015 21:05, John C Klensin wrote:
>> (reposting -- the IETF mail system apparently didn't like the
>> "implicit" copy to apps-discuss)
>> 
>> --On Sunday, March 29, 2015 15:05 +0100 Alexey Melnikov
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 27/03/2015 19:29, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>>> I will send email responses to the feedback received with
>>>>> what we did. I may not get those out today though. But I
>>>>> think the doc should be ready for the IESG telechat.
>>>> Thanks.  I've issued the ballot; I'll wait to change the
>>>> state until I hear that your co-authors & shepherd are OK
>>>> with it.
>>> This is almost perfect :-).
>>> 
>>> A couple of comments:
>>> ...
>>> Here is a real world example of a problem with this text. SIDR
>>> WG decided to use rsync protocol, they needed to use rsync
>>> URIs. rsync URIs are currently provisional, defined in an
>>> Informational RFC.  So this text is basically saying that
>>> under the new rule the registration have to be upgraded to
>>> Permanent, allowing the expert reviewer (no disrespect to
>>> Graham or his future replacement) to be a person that blocks
>>> consensus of a WG to use a particular technology. I find this
>>> to be problematic.
>>> 
>>> Do people agree that this is problematic?
>> 
>> Yes.
> 
> To a point, but I think it should be resolvable (I'm responding without cross-checking the original or revised registration procedure).
> 
> Under the circumstances that a WG has achieved consensus to use a particular scheme, I think there's sufficient grounds to upgrade its registration to permanent.  I think a request to do so should come from the WG concerned (I think that's doable within the current and new spec), and preferably as part of the IANA considerations for the spec that uses it.  That would bring the issue to DE's attention with appropriate context.
> 
> I don't think think this gives the DE any greater power of veto than they already have with respect to a WG consensus request to register a new permanent scheme.

I would think slightly more comfortable if the document has a paragraph discussing the above (pretty much using what you said).

But if others don't think this is an issue, I will let it go.