Re: [dispatch] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03

[Bron Gondwana <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2020, at 03:37, Ben Campbell wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 8, 2020, at 12:15 PM, Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Does anyone else feel this way? I am opposed.
>>  
>> It **appears** that this change removes the requirement for proper URI’s, or at least moves the responsibility to IANA, which is hired staff.
> 
> I continue to oppose any approach that removes the requirement that the URI scheme itself go through an expert review. It seems appropriate that such review happen at the time of scheme registration (as opposed to the time of requesting inclusion in uri.arpa).  The requirement for permanent registration of the scheme gives us that.
> 
> There may be other ways to achieve the same thing, but they would almost certain require more complicated specification changes than simply saying “The scheme MUST be permanently registered”.

I agree with Rich and Ben here  - the IETF takes responsibility for uri.arpa, and hence has an interest in the quality of what is registered there.  This means that expert review is appropriate to ensure that everything that we take responsibility for works well together.

We do not have a responsibility to allow arbitrary registration that goes against the technical judgement of our designated experts just because those registrants want it.

For these reasons I support the publication of draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update-03 with its current wording.

Bron.

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  [e-mail]