Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

On 23/06/2020 07:51, Ben Campbell wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> The ART ADs have reminded the chairs that our charter allows us to adopt “simple administrative” work such as IANA registration documents. This draft seems to fit squarely in that category. Does anyone see a reason we shouldn’t just adopt it, with the expectation of going immediately to WGLC? (The last-call timeline is the same either way, either 2 weeks WGLC and 2 weeks IETF LC for a working group draft, or 4 weeks IETF LC for an AD sponsored draft.)

Triggered by the recent discussion, I had a look at Ted's draft and the 
mail up to today. To me, both AD sponsored and Dispatch WG look 
reasonable, with a slight preference for the former (if asked to express 
such a preference).

With respect to "pending registrations", I do not think these are 
relevant, in particular because the thing in question isn't actually a 
scheme, as discussed on the relevant list.

I have one comment: The abstract currently reads
"This document removes references to the IETF tree of URI registrations 
for registrations in URI.ARPA.". I found this hard to read, and I guess 
it's because of the "registrations for registrations" piece. Unless one 
is very familiar with the matter at hand, it's easy to think that both 
occurrences of "registration" are referencing the same thing. While I'm 
at it, it would also be good if the abstract mentioned something 
positive. I think a less normative version of (the single sentence that 
is) Section 2 would serve well as the abstract.

Regards,   Martin.

> Thanks!
> 
> Ben (as co-chair)
> 
>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 6:13 PM, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> This is one the shortest drafts I've ever written:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update/ <https://datatracker.ietf..org/doc/draft-hardie-dispatch-rfc3405-update/> ..   Basically, RFC 3405 used to require that registrations in URI.ARPA be from the "IETF Tree".  That tree was deprecated after the document was published.  As it happens, there are very few registrations in URI.ARPA, so we did not catch it and fix it before now.
>>
>> This draft updates RFC 3405 to require "permanent" scheme registrations.  The salient bit is this:
>>
>> All registrations in URI.ARPA MUST be for schemes which are permanent
>>     registrations, as they are described in BCP 35.
>>
>> I'm hoping for a quick dispatch of this, but happy to discuss.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Ted Hardie
>> _______________________________________________
>> dispatch mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> 

-- 
Prof. Dr.sc. Martin J. Dürst
Department of Intelligent Information Technology
College of Science and Engineering
Aoyama Gakuin University
Fuchinobe 5-1-10, Chuo-ku, Sagamihara
252-5258 Japan