Re: Model Draft - miscellaneous - IANA

"tom.petch" <> Thu, 14 February 2008 14:45 UTC

Message-Id: <THU.14.FEB.2008.154546.0100.>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:45:46 +0100
From: "tom.petch" <>
Subject: Re: Model Draft - miscellaneous - IANA
Comments: To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Picking up just the point about IANA, I suggest, plagiarising shamelessly from
other I-Ds,

9.1.  URN Namespace Registration

   IANA is requested to register a new XML namespace, as per the
   guidelines in RFC 3688 [RFC3688].

   URI:  The URI for this namespace is

   Registrant Contact:  IESG {or else could be ForCES working group}

   XML: none, this is an XML namespace

9.2 LFB Class Names and LFB Class Identifiers

 IANA is requested to created a register of ForCES LFB Class Names and LFB Class
Identifiers. ....

with the existing s.9 slightly modified to follow on from the above and adding
[RFC3688] as a normative reference.

I always like to give IANA a clear simple request to act; they may be ForCES
experts, they may never have heard of it, the simpler the request is, the more
likely it is to be followed accurately.  Thus I specify 'ForCES LFB Class Names'
just in case there is another LFB (Linked Forward Bidirectionality ?) that we
have never heard of.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
To: "tom.petch" <>
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: Model Draft - miscellaneous

> Thank you Tom.  Except for the few questions below, all of your comments
> (in both messages) make sense to me and seem non-controversial, so I
> will act on them as part of closing the WG last call, before IESG
> submission.
> Items I have questions about, or think should be highlighted to the
> working group:
> tom.petch wrote:
> > Some miscellaneous editorial suggestions
> ...
> > 4 Each of the library documents will conform to the schema presented ...
> > /will/MUST/ ??
> It is really hard to mandate what happens in another RFC.  Even if we
> said MUST, they could do something different.  On the other hand "will"
> is odd language, so MUST is probably better.
> ..
> > 7 why isn't there a State declaration in response to a State query?
> Because this whole section is idiosyncratic to match other documents.
> (I wouldn't even have it if it weren't mandated by earlier group
> decisions in the framework / requirements work.)
> ...
> > 9 assignment by IETF RFCs.
> > I see this terminology as deprecated in favour of a more explicit Standards
> > Track RFC or just RFC; RFC can be IETF or Individual Submission, either can
> > Standards Track or not.  I think that this should be Standards Track,
whether it
> > comes from an IETF WG or as an Individual Submission, eg from a vendor.
> I can live with standards track.  Given that there is a first-come,
> first-served section, standards track is probably quite reasonable for
> the controlled section.
> As a minor note, there is no such thing as an Individual Submission for
> standards track.
> ...
> > 9 I observe the lack of a request to IANA to allocate the XML namespace:-)
> I am not sure what needs to be said to "allocate" the namespace beyond
> the statement to the IANA about what namespace we are using.  If there
> is another sentence I can / should add, let me know.