Re: [apps-discuss] Comments on draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

I think there are only two minor things left to respond to here:

>> I don't think it's appropriate to specify the general IETF
>> discussion list as the contact point (Author/Change controller).
>> Put something "real" in there.
>
> For example?

Fair question.  The problem is that we usually use either the document
author/editor or the working group mailing list, and in this case the
former isn't appropriate, and I'm not sure about the latter.  Hm....

I suggest that we either use <[e-mail]> or
<[e-mail]>, and I'm not sure which one is right.  Perhaps
others on apps-discuss, or perhaps the ADs, will comment.

>> NEW
>>   The registration procedures for this registry are "First Come First
>>   Served', described in RFC 5226 [RFC5226], with supporting
>>   documentation meeting the requirements below.  The registrant
>>   of the token MUST provide the following registration template,
>>   which will be made available on IANA web site:
>> ...
>>     Specification.  REQUIRED field.  This provides documentation
>>     at a level that could be used to create a compliant, interoperable
>>     implementation of the registered "about" URI.  The full
>>     specification SHOULD be included here, but it MAY be a
>>     reference to a document published elsewhere, if there is a
>>     reasonable expectation that the documentation will remain
>>     available.  IANA will consult with the IESG or its specified
>>     delegate if there is doubt about whether the specification is
>>     adequate for the purpose.
>>
>> This provides for a sort of "expert review" only to determine whether
>> the documentation is suitable, and does not have an expert at the gate
>> to block registrations.  I think this is a perfect example of a
>> registry where we'd rather have things registered and documented than
>> not, so encouraging that with minimal hassle and minimal risk for
>> rejection is best.
>
> I agree with such wording.  What I added is:
>
>>   o Specification.  This provides documentation at a level that could
>>     be used to create a compliant, interoperable implementation of the
>>     registered "about" URI.  The reference to a full specification MUST
>>     be provided here, and there should be a reasonable expectation that
>>     the documentation will remain available.  IANA will consult with
>>     the IESG or its specified delegate if there is doubt about whether
>>     the specification is adequate for the purpose.

I'm mostly fine with that.  In my suggested text, I put REQUIRED for
the field, and MAY for the separate documentation, because there will
likely be cases where the only specification needed is a couple of
sentences that can just be included here directly.  With "The
reference to a full specification MUST be provided here," we're
requiring that there always be a separate "full" specification, and I
think that'll just be excessive in many cases.

Note that when I said, "The full specification SHOULD be included
here," what I meant was that the full text of the specification SHOULD
be included right here in the field, rather than in a separate
document, but then added that there MAY be a separate document.  My
intent might not have been clear.

Do others have comments on this?

Barry