Re: [dispatch] Tiny update to RFC 3405

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Martin,

Suggested re-wording below.

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 12:34 AM Martin J. Dürst <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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.".


Would "This document removes references to the IETF tree of URI
registrations from the procedures for requesting that a URI scheme be
inserted into the uri.arpa zone." work for you?

regards,

Ted

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
>
> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>