Re: [apps-discuss] URI registry

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]