Re: [apps-discuss] Encouraging third party registrations

Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> Tue, 15 November 2011 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <GK@ninebynine.org>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2C121F8D92 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:32:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.412
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.412 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.112, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4i6o80z3S3A3 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:32:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay3.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay3.mail.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A27E21F8D74 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:32:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.mail.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.205]) by relay3.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1RQEQv-0006ql-A0; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:31:57 +0000
Received: from gklyne.plus.com ([80.229.154.156] helo=Eskarina.local) by smtp2.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1RQEQu-00056s-8D; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:31:56 +0000
Message-ID: <4EC220C6.5060601@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:20:22 +0000
From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0611DABF22@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4EC0BE9E.8020702@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O8ETBP3QY400RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EC1C3D7.7070402@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
In-Reply-To: <4EC1C3D7.7070402@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
Cc: Roy Fielding <fielding@adobe.com>, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Encouraging third party registrations
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:32:09 -0000

On 15/11/2011 01:43, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>>> > ENCOURAGE the public to register any names that they have seen in
>>> > deployed software. (same for URI schemes)
>>
>>> I think third-party registration is indeed something we should encourage
>>> more.
>>
>> How do you propose we do that?
>
> It seems that currently, people don't even know that it is possible. So the
> first step is to make this more known. On another list, you write: "We have
> always allowed registrations by any interested party." That's apparently true,
> but is it done because nowhere in RFC 4288 it says it's not possible? Then
> making it explicit in draft-freed-media-type-regs should help.

+1

I think a wiki-FAQ linked from each registry page could go a long way to help.

[[
Make registration procedures / contacts / requirements / guidelines available in 
a user-friendly format (NOT just an RFC) linked from the registry page. E.g., 
give each registry some wiki space linked from its registry page.
]]
-- http://www.w3.org/wiki/FriendlyRegistries#Clear_Process

If we want a simple enhancement to smooth the path of registration, I think this 
is something we could do now which could have a significant effect, without 
updating any RFCs, etc.  As reviewer for URIs and Header fields, I'd be happy to 
put up some initial content for those.  Maybe a common list of FAQs to get this 
started; e.g.

q. Who can register a <foo>?

q. What are the requirements for registering a <foo>?

q. Where should I send my request to register <foo>?

q. What happens next?

q. Who should I contact if I'm not happy with a response to my request?

q. Who has the final say about any registration request?

q. What do I do if I think there is an error in a registration?

q. How do I update a registration?

q. [How] can I add a comment to a registration?

(I've added this suggestion to 
http://www.w3.org/wiki/FriendlyRegistries#Clear_Process)

#g