Re: [apps-discuss] Encouraging third party registrations

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Tue, 15 November 2011 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
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 19E311F0C5B for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:38:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 sq6d7IaxxFGV for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:38:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE731F0C5A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:38:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O8FYL5CNWG00Z7UX@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:38:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1; Format=flowed
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O8DV7Q11A800RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:38:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <01O8FYL3XLFO00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:33:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 15 Nov 2011 08:20:22 +0000" <4EC220C6.5060601@ninebynine.org>
References: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0611DABF22@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4EC0BE9E.8020702@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O8ETBP3QY400RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EC1C3D7.7070402@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4EC220C6.5060601@ninebynine.org>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Roy Fielding <fielding@adobe.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 16:38:24 -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.

Very good idea.

> [[
> 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)

Great list.

One of the problems with the material in the RFC is that while the overall
process is fairly complex, the process for any given case is not. But you still
have to get past all the other cases to understand yours.

It would help a lot if these links can be made as context-sensitive as
possible, especially if we end up folding standards tree registrations into
the same form.

				Ned