Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-02

[Christian Groves <[e-mail]>]

Hello Pete,

No worries about the delay as there was IETF meeting to deal with.

I don't think the fact that public and private packages have different 
ranges has been glossed over. This has been utilised by different 
registrations. You can see from the current registrations that private 
companies i.e. Ericsson, Nokia have registered packages in the "private" 
space.

I'm hesitant to mandate that unless the document is "publicly" available 
then the package must be registered in the "private" space. This is 
really due to the history of the protocol and the knowledge that the 
wording was like it was to allow membership based SDOs to have a 
different status from private companies. For instance if the ITU hadn't 
made Recommendations publicly available we'd now be proposing that their 
packages become "private" which I sure would have raised a few eye brows.

So from my perspective I would prefer to leave the current text because 
this aspect of public vs private and the availability of packages hasn't 
caused us trouble since the inception of the registry. What has caused 
trouble is the quality of the packages and in part that's what the draft 
is trying to address.

Regards, Christian

McCann Peter-A001034 wrote:
> Hi, Christian,
>
> Sorry for the delay in responding.
>
> I am happy to let the IESG make a decision on whether or not
> to make a distinction for "recognized" SDOs, and for availability
> of specification.  I just wanted to make one point that may have
> been glossed over: there is a distinction made between "public"
> packages and "private" packages; they have different number spaces
> for the binary ID.  Would it be too much to ask that if a specification
> is not publicly available at a stable URL, then the package must
> be registered in the "private" space?
>
> -Pete
>
> Christian Groves wrote:
>   
>> Hello Peter,
>>
>> Please see my comments below, marked [CNG].
>>
>> Regards, Christian
>>
>> McCann Peter-A001034 wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi, Christian,
>>>
>>> I am fine on your and Cullen's explanation on the major issue.
>>> It sounds like expert review is the right policy here.  By choosing
>>> an expert closely affiliated with the ITU study group I guess we are
>>> ceding some of the change control to them, which matches what has
>>> been happening with the rest of the H.248 standards.
>>>
>>>       
>> [CNG] I don't see the expert issue is one of affiliation or control
>> it just should be someone who is activity following or contributing
>> to the work. I would expect that that person would have to follow
>> both the IETF and the ITU.   
>>     
>>> On the question of "recognized standards organization", I really
>>> wonder if we can do without this distinction.  It seems like the
>>> rules given in the draft mainly allow shorter codes to be registered
>>> by these organizations.  Would it really harm the world for an
>>> individual to register a package with a short name?  I can imagine
>>> that some packages may become important even when not developed by a
>>> "recognized standards organization".  Given the review that needs to
>>> take place, we could easily guard against squatting or spamming
>>> behaviors. 
>>>
>>>       
>> [CNG] I've addressed this point more in response to Cullen email. The
>> original intention behind the split registry was that packages
>> defined by SDOs would be perceived differently to private packages.  
>>     
>>> On the question of publicly available specifications, personally I
>>> would like to see this required of public packages.  I don't think
>>> it's fair for someone to use the IETF process for registering such a
>>> package without disclosing enough information for anyone to produce
>>> an interoperable implementation.  The situation with H.248 right now
>>> is that I can go to the ITU website and download a copy, which I
>>> think removed some of the qualms IETF may have had about turning
>>> over change control from MEGACO to ITU.  I wouldn't want to see
>>> H.248 turned into a proprietary protocol through the extension
>>> mechanisms. 
>>>
>>>       
>> [CNG] We've had the distinction between public and private packages
>> since the first Megaco/H.248 RFC/Recommendation and haven't had any
>> issues with this aspect thus far. I personally think that standards
>> should be made available to everyone but the reality is that there
>> are SDOs/Fora where documents are only available to members. I think
>> this availability is a general issue and not just applicable the
>> Megaco/H.248 work.      
>> I think that it is a good thing that they may want to use
>> Megaco/H.248, if they want to add packages in addition to what is
>> already defined then for me this is OK. If those packages are
>> applicable to the wider community then this is a comment that I think
>> the IESG appointed expert can make and encourage the organisation to
>> make it more widely available. This has occurred with 3GPP where they
>> have proposed a 3GPP specific function but based on feedback have let
>> the ITU produce a more general widely available solution. Another
>> case was the MSF which was looking at standardising their own
>> packages which would have been made available only to there members.
>> On review and feedback it was pointed out that the packages in
>> instances were incorrect and in other instances the packages were
>> incorporated into ITU/ETSI documents. So in short, to this date we
>> haven't had the "proprietary protocol"            
>> issue and I don't think that the people/companies currently involved
>> in the Megaco/H.248 standard would desire that this would happen. 
>>
>>     
>>> -Pete
>>>
>>>
>>> Christian Groves wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Hello Peter and Cullen,
>>>>
>>>> Peter, thanks for the comments. With regards to the major issue I
>>>> would agree with Cullen's comments. In addition it's important to
>>>> point out that the draft largely documents the process as it being
>>>> implemented. The written description (pre this draft) doesn't
>>>> actually match what is occurring. The draft also tries to set some
>>>> review guidelines which again weren't documented. We have
>>>> previously in the Megaco/H.248 work had cases where packages have
>>>> been registered but basic things were missing or not well explained
>>>> which have caused issues. By describing a review path we hope to
>>>> pick these issues up before a package is fully registered.
>>>>
>>>> Please see my comments below on the other issues marked [CNG]
>>>>
>>>> Once we resolve the "recognised standards organisation" issue i'll
>>>> provide an updated draft. 
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Christian
>>>>
>>>> Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Christian, could you take a look at the minor issues & nits and
>>>>> submit a draft to resolve theses - if some of them don't need to be
>>>>> changed, just sort that on this email thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter, on the topic of the Major issue...
>>>>>
>>>>> The existing procedures require the review to happen at IETF.
>>>>> Almost all the work on this is actually happening at ITU right now
>>>>> so we are trying to make it easier for the ITU folks get the
>>>>> approvals they need done. We will select an expert reviewer that
>>>>> is closely involved with the ITU folks working on this as they are
>>>>> much more aware of all the ongoing work is and can catch
>>>>> conflicts, duplicated efforts etc. 
>>>>>
>>>>> This should make it easier to get things approved than the current
>>>>> process while at the same time helping improve the actual quality
>>>>> of the review. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope that helps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cullen
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 23, 2009, at 11:50 AM, McCann Peter-A001034 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
>>>>>> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
>>>>>> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
>>>>>> comments you may receive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Document: draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-02
>>>>>> Reviewer: Peter J. McCann
>>>>>> Review Date: 23 February 2009
>>>>>> IETF LC End Date: 23 February 2009
>>>>>> IESG Telechat date: unknown
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Summary: Ready with nits, if the IESG wants to change the IANA
>>>>>> considerations for H.248. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Major issues:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This document inserts an expert review procedure in the allocation
>>>>>> policy for new H.248 packages/error codes/service change/profiles.
>>>>>> This is probably a good thing but I have not been following the
>>>>>> history of the H.248 effort so I'm not aware of any problems that
>>>>>> have occurred under the existing allocation policies.  The IESG
>>>>>> should weigh carefully whether the allocation policy really needs
>>>>>> changing. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Minor issues:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a couple of places the document gives special treatment to
>>>>>> "recognized standards bodies."  How does a standards body become
>>>>>> "recognized" by the IETF?  Should we specify that a liaison
>>>>>> relationship must be in place?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> [CNG] Yes it may be good to add which bodies are recognized. Given
>>>> that H.248/Megaco was developed jointly the people who came mainly
>>>> from IETF thought "IETF Liaison relationship" and those from the ITU
>>>> probably thought "Recognised Standards Development Organisation". I
>>>> had a quick look at the IETF website and found:
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/liaisonActivities.html is this the list of
>>>> bodies who the IETF has a liaison relationship with?
>>>>
>>>> The ITU-T also maintains a list of qualified Forums/Consortiums
>>>> (http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/lists/qualified.aspx#forums). This seems
>>>> to be a more comprehensive list of organisations (i.e. it includes
>>>> national bodies). Could I had a pointer to this list in the draft?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> Section 4.2 states that a specification is required for review by
>>>>>> the designated expert, but it seems to allow that this
>>>>>> specification isn't publicly available.  Should there be a
>>>>>> requirement at least for public packages that the specification
>>>>>> be public? 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> [CNG] I think this is really dependent on the rules of the standards
>>>> organisation. The IETF is good that all documents are public but
>>>> this doesn't apply to organisations such a MSF where the documents
>>>> are available to the members but not the general public. So I don't
>>>> think the draft can mandate that the package should be publicly
>>>> available. 
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Section 1:
>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>>   Given this situation, it is appropriate that the H.248/Package
>>>>>> Package definition NEW:
>>>>>>   Given this situation, it is appropriate that the H.248/Package 
>>>>>> definition 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> [CNG] OK
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> Section 4.2:
>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>>   2) The package requester shall provide a contact name, email and
>>>>>>   postal addresses for that contact shall be specified.
>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>>   2) The package requester shall provide a contact name, and an
>>>>>>   email and postal address for that contact shall be specified.
>>>>>> [CNG] OK 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>>   provided available for review
>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>>   provided and available for review
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> [CNG] OK
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>>   5) Package names are allocated on a first come-first served if
>>>>>> all   other conditions are met. NEW:
>>>>>>   5) Package names are allocated on a first come-first served
>>>>>> basis 
>>>>>> if all
>>>>>>   other conditions are met.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> [CNG] OK
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> Section 5.1:
>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>>   shall forward to received information
>>>>>> NEW:
>>>>>>   shall forward the received information
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> [CNG] OK
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> Section 5.2:
>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>>   On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall
>>>>>>   forward to received information (i.e. the Error Code text
>>>>>>   (Specification required) to the IESG appointed expert for review
>>>>>>   (See section 4.3). NEW: On the request for an Error Code
>>>>>>   registration, the IANA shall forward the received information
>>>>>>   (i.e. the Error Code text and required specification) to the
>>>>>> IESG appointed expert for review (See section 4.3). [CNG] OK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Section 5.3:
>>>>>> OLD:
>>>>>>   On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall
>>>>>>   forward to received information (i.e. the Service Change Reason
>>>>>>   text (Specification required) to the IESG appointed expert for
>>>>>> review (See   section 4.4). NEW:
>>>>>>   On the request for an Service Change Reason registration, the
>>>>>>   IANA shall forward the received information (i.e. the Service
>>>>>>   Change Reason text and required specification) to the IESG
>>>>>>   appointed expert for review (See section 4.4).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> [CNG] OK
>>>>         
>
>
>