Re: [apps-discuss] Encouraging third party registrations

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Tue, 15 November 2011 04:54 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 915931F0C5E for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:54:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.05
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.05 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.506, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6]
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 Q-ada+x080in for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:54:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C6EF1F0C4F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:54:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O8FA10MBKW018S61@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:54:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O8DV7Q11A800RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:54:46 -0800 (PST)
Message-id: <01O8FA0XHURA00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:50:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:14:02 +0800" <4EC1E70A.7030909@stpeter.im>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; Format=flowed
References: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0611DABF22@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <4EC0BE9E.8020702@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <01O8ETBP3QY400RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <4EC1C3D7.7070402@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4EC1CAC9.7000301@isode.com> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0611DAC11F@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <CAK3OfOhcLOv881KUghAq-tq+H7DASpW=9zveQSFLw8QH5-OU0w@mail.gmail.com> <4EC1E70A.7030909@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 04:54:56 -0000

> On 11/15/11 11:00 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Larry Masinter<masinter@adobe.com>  wrote:
> >> Who should a third-party registrar list as the "change controller" ?
> >
> > If collisions don't matter then who cares?  Just add more collisions :)
> >
> > Alternatively, how about:
> >
> >     A third party should not claim to be the owner.
> >     The third party could specify an owner, but that should be considered
> >        informative.
> >     Anyone could make a claim on a registration that has no owner already.
> >     Anyone claiming to be the owner of a registration that already has an
> >        owner would have to submit their claim to<fill in the blank>  (IESG?),
> >        with appeals going to<fill in the blank>  (IAB?).
> >
> > But I think it's better to just not have to have an owner, nor any
> > change control -- it's easier and cheaper that way, particularly if it
> > is true that collisions in this namespace are of little consequence.

> I think I might buy into that. So the change controller and owner is
> IANA, right?

No, if you're going to weaken or even eliminate the owner/change controller
concept - and I think this is an idea that's worth exploring - you need to do
that, not put IANA in the middle of the process as some sort of substitute.

> Do we expect that IANA would keep track of who has asked it
> to register or modify any given entry?

That's how it works currently. In practice I don't believe there has ever been
a problem caused by someone registering something they shouldn't have, and
there definitely have been third party registrations.

				Ned