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

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

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.

#g
--

>
> At the risk of tossing a spanner toward the works, one more
> issue that seems to me very significant:
>
> Larry Masinter has raised several issues in the URNBIS WG in
> which he claims that draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg
> constrains what that WG is proposing to do with URNs [1].  I
> also believe that some of his comments mix up registration of
> schemes (e.g., "urn:") with registrations of URN namespaces and
> NIDs  I think those issues need to be considered in that WG.
> However, procedurally, it seems to me that either:
>
> (1) Existing registrations are existing registrations and any
> updates to them are grandfathered, i.e., whatever
> draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg says is not applicable to the
> original or updated registration of any URI scheme registered or
> deployed before it is approved and published.  That obviously
> includes the revised URN registration contemplated by
> draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn.
>
> (2) We have a mess on our hands in which not only do the
> mandates of different WGs overlap but in which an area WG that
> is not noted for very intense reviews can constrain and override
> the work of more topic-focused (and, therefore, presumably more
> expert on their own topics) WGs and other efforts.  This is
> particularly problematic in the case of URIs, where parallel
> (and not entirely consistent) work is going on to further
> develop specific URI schemes (URNs being only one such example)
> and groups outside the IETF (including WHATWG and W3C groups)
> with coordination processes that are still being negotiated and
> in groups that are heavily dependent on URIs and URI handling
> (certainly including HTTPbis).
>
> If it is applicable to existing registrations and ongoing work
> in other WGs, this spec is even more problematic because it is
> heavily dependent on details of RFC 3986, a specification whose
> exact meaning, implications, and consequences continue to be
> debated and which is a candidate for preemption or replacement
> by those other bodies.
>
> I suggest that any IESG action on
> draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg be deferred until which of the
> above principles applies can be clarified (and clarified in the
> document) and, if the second option is chosen, that formal
> reviews and impact assessments be sought from all active WGs
> that are involved with or use URIs as well as from W3C.
>
> Sorry to be raising this so late in the process, but it never
> occurred to me that anyone would claim that
> draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg constrained other IETF WGs,
> standards-track updates to existing registrations that were made
> as the result of standards actions, etc.  Since that claim has
> now been made, and made by one of the authors of the new draft
> who presumably understands the intent, a "wait a minute"
> response seems necessary.
>
>       john
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg02873.html
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>