Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-07

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 25 May 2012 01:23 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 C64D311E808E; Thu, 24 May 2012 18:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.866
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.866 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.267, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 IgRcLMMtVn+f; Thu, 24 May 2012 18:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30E1711E8085; Thu, 24 May 2012 18:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.21.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F8DA22E256; Thu, 24 May 2012 21:23:33 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <01OFVCLHDSRI0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:23:30 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <68C02F3D-B7A5-4B9F-B056-A15F59E80DE5@mnot.net>
References: <39405CB0-D62D-419F-83C6-DB3CFA7CD9B7@mnot.net> <01OFJW6FHKJ60006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> <004C9D74-9447-43F5-8C29-32E26716FB99@isode.com> <01OFJY4T4E9K0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> <0B11FB37-5971-4191-9298-85A357794C8F@isode.com> <01OFK4MBYUPG0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> <4FBE4172.5020509@isode.com> <01OFUV6NJYR60006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> <711532BB4A183EA21FAF4413@PST.JCK.COM> <F7FDD7DF-A7FF-4AD0-9068-2B44EEE5B759@mnot.net> <4FBED11F.7070109@stpeter.im> <01OFVCLHDSRI0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-appsawg-media-type-regs-07
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: Fri, 25 May 2012 01:23:41 -0000

On 25/05/2012, at 11:17 AM, Ned Freed wrote:

>> On 5/24/12 6:08 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 25/05/2012, at 3:47 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Upon receipt of a provisional registration, IANA will check the
>>>>> name and contact information, then publish the registration in a
>>>>> separate publicly visible provisional registration list. ... Does
>>>>> this work for you?
>>>> 
>>>> FWIW, it works for me.
>>> 
>>> For the record, it doesn't work for me. Having a separate list forces
>>> people to check two separate lists, causing confusion and reducing
>>> the overall value of the registry (we already have a problem with
>>> people using Wikipedia instead of IANA).
> 
>> +1
> 
> The point of the provisional registry is to reserve the name so standards
> can be written and trial implementations developed without having to go
> through a subsequent name change.
> 
> It is *not* there so that random people can look up and start using the type.
> Which is very likely to happen if there isn't a clean separation.
> 
> If the IESG feels differently, we'll see. But I am absolutely and totally
> opposed to these not being separate, and at least one of my coauthors (John)
> has indicated that if anything, he's even more opposed to it than I am.


I think the underlying problem is that "provisional" is used in a different sense in RFC3864. I'm not saying it's the *right* sense, but having two different meanings for the same term in somewhat related registries isn't optimal.


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/