Re: [apps-discuss] URI registry

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Mon, 14 February 2011 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 852913A6C2F for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 17:41:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.512
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.512 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.678, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, J_CHICKENPOX_48=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EStlfe7q03tH for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 17:41:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86763A6AEF for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Feb 2011 17:41:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id p1E1g9ds018031 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:42:10 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 7e24_44dd_a2d791c2_37db_11e0_b59d_001d096c566a; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:42:09 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:39159) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S14CEC5C> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:42:08 +0900
Message-ID: <4D58886B.70407@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:42:03 +0900
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
References: %3C4D26B005.2060909@gmail.com%3E <4D2C7755.5080908@gmail.com> <81F42F63D5BB344ABF294F8E80990C7902782BBA@MTV-EXCHANGE.microfocus.com> <4D455380.6040103@gmail.com> <3792F8F3-D01B-4B05-9E73-59228F09FE5C@gbiv.com> <4D464EA4.7090303@gmail.com> <7ED44745-7DBA-4372-BE39-22061DC26DF2@gbiv.com> <4D46CE52.6030503@vpnc.org> <4D47DD4A.7040503@gmail.com> <06BA884E-D1C7-4783-BBE6-A6B21DE013B7@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <4D482071.8050202@gmail.com> <CDAB7832-EBF9-4ECE-B8D1-09BA39BDF4B8@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <4D48267A.1030800@gmail.com> <96CC61EE-81BD-43CB-A83F-78E67B2DA7A5@niven-jenkins.co.uk> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D058EEE61B9@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com> <026901cbc781$a2724ee0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4D520AE6.8070502@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <000901cbc867$7a9d31a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4D537E48.9030403@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4D53BF48.1010804@ninebynine.org>
In-Reply-To: <4D53BF48.1010804@ninebynine.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] URI registry
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 01:41:56 -0000

Hello Graham,

On 2011/02/11 5:23, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>> [Responding one more time here because this is a metadiscussion]
>
> [Ditto, and also maybe affects the header registry
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864)]

Only to the apps-discuss list this time, because the IRI list already 
got it.

I have opened an issue for this, please see
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/57.

Regards,   Martin.


> What happened to "rough consensus and running code"?
>
> As a reviewer, I sometimes make a recommendation that is in the spirit
> of the proposal even if not explicitly covered by the letter, but also
> alerting the relevant IESG director if I do so. I think this is very
> much in the IETF spirit of "do the right thing".
>
> For the message header registry, there some "weasel words" to allow some
> flexibility in section 4.4 that were intended to help circumvent
> unnecessary process-wrangling, ending with "The IESG is the final
> arbiter of any objection."
>
> It seems to me that if the IANA+reviewer make a visible disposition that
> nobody objects to, the easiest thing is to just do it.
>
> I'm not sure if it's necessary, but one might consider a minor update up
> the registration RFC(s) to provide this lattitude more explicitly, with
> further effort to be expended only in the event of an objection. At some
> point, we need to trust the process participants (reserving the option
> to verify), or we get nowhere.
>
> #g
> --

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp