Re: [apps-discuss] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lanthaler-profile-registry-01.txt

"Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> Wed, 17 April 2013 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <markus.lanthaler@gmx.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 D89A521E809C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
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 LZl+tmuJ1LlE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D68E21E809B for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:32:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.10]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lyxby-1Ug1Jg1isq-014FUN for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:32:08 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2013 20:32:08 -0000
Received: from 84-115-182-43.dynamic.surfer.at (EHLO Vostro3500) [84.115.182.43] by mail.gmx.net (mp010) with SMTP; 17 Apr 2013 22:32:08 +0200
X-Authenticated: #419883
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18mK3xwR9MmE90Lh/M71e38KqT63HZYgr7C0cGzal pZkhkZZ2TzRcVf
From: "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
To: "'Barry Leiba'" <barryleiba@computer.org>, "'Murray S. Kucherawy'" <superuser@gmail.com>
References: <516e8a54.45f7440a.7dcc.1253SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <CAL0qLwb+9CYnOYw9kcMdzZvyPagcUrhxUkmOiMZNAXpzFe6MYA@mail.gmail.com> <CAC4RtVC+rr0ZwBRk0jit7Ye-7H6D8yawiW7OG2RFhns5jqbQyQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVC+rr0ZwBRk0jit7Ye-7H6D8yawiW7OG2RFhns5jqbQyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:32:00 +0200
Message-ID: <028001ce3baa$9e3fbf20$dabf3d60$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Content-Language: de
Thread-Index: Ac47gJ+crLH15qQwRkaAb94yZK/c5gAKP2Iw
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: 'IETF Apps Discuss' <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lanthaler-profile-registry-01.txt
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: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:32:24 -0000

First of all, thanks to both of you for the quick reply!

> > This document creates a registry, so I'm fairly certain it needs to
> > go through the IETF Stream, which means an Area Director has to
> > sponsor it or a working group has to adopt it.  On the other hand,
> > although Independent Submission stream drafts can't create registry
> > entries when the registry has certain constraints, I couldn't find
> > anything constraining registry creation.  Someone should check my
> > math here.
> 
> There's nothing that says you can't create a new registry through the
> Independent Stream, as long as the IESG doesn't think it conflicts
> with IETF work, so that's not the issue here.

Great. Good to know.


> The reason this can't go through the Independent Stream (that is,
> directly to the RFC Editor) is that it's requesting an IETF-namespace
> URN sub-namespace in the second bullet of Section 4.  RFC 3553 says
> this about that:
> 
>    Process of identifier assignment:
> 
>       Identifiers are assigned only after a particular protocol element
>       or number has been registered with the IANA using standard
>       policies and procedures, or documented in an RFC describing a
>       standards track protocol.  This means that the 'gating' function
>       for assignment is the "IETF Consensus" process documented in RFC
>       2434 [4].
> 
> I suggest that the appsawg might process this document.

OK.. so I think all I can do now is to kindly ask the appsawg whether it is
interested in this work and use the document as starting point for the rest
of the process.


Thanks again,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler