Re: [core] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-groves-core-rfc6690up-00.txt

[Christian Amsüss <[e-mail]>]

Hello Christian,

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 06:48:34PM +0900, Christian Groves wrote:
> > > [The prefix] MUST be followed by a ".".
> > the "core" prefix claimed in RFC6690 already violates that rule. Should
> > it be mentioned explicitly as an exception? Should the IETF "hand back"
> > all "core[^.]" to IANA?
>
> I'm not sure why RFC6690 violates the rule? RFC6690 indicates that "the
> value starts with a lowercase alphabetic character, followed by a sequence
> of lowercase alphabetic, numeric, ".",...". It then further recommends "that
> the period "." character be used for dividing name segments.
> 
> The only core value registered with IANA is core.gp so it follows the
> recommendation in the draft. If the MUST is a problem then I'm happy to fall
> back to the "it is recommended" text.

"violates" was maybe too strong a word; it's just that if we limited the
reserved names from "core*" to "core.*", "core" wouldn't need to be an
exception any more (as it is now) but could be just one organisation
prefix.

On second thought, making 'core.' an organisation prefix would make the
CoRE WG responsible for publishing (or at least managing) a part of the
namespace we just handed off to IANA, so maybe it does need to stay an
exception.

On "third thought": I didn't find that it says anything ruling out still
registering parameters with IANA inside a registered organisation
prefix. Can a (general, but of course I'm thinking of "core." here)
organisation prefix registrant submit a specification that says that
paremeters need to be registered as individual parameters in the CoRE
parameters registry (after all, that's still possible), provided it's
within what IANA will do? (A different working group could then, for
example, claim a "homenet." organization prefix, set the "RFC required"
policy or maybe name their own expert without opening up a IANA new
registry that would receive a delegation from the CoRE parameters).

Is this, in general, something that the draft allows or forbids, and it
is allowed, is it the way to go with "core."? Or do you think it's a
non-issue anyway?

Best regards
Christian

-- 
I shouldn't have written all those tank programs.
  -- Kevin Flynn