Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-scim-core-schema-17

Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se> Mon, 20 April 2015 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <leifj@mnt.se>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 721231B2D11 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EF5W5p2JrHby for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com (mail-la0-f54.google.com [209.85.215.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EAAD1B2D13 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:02:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lagv1 with SMTP id v1so135512353lag.3 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=aqpVCMYEblAOLcooFQnbfazknuSzfsfxvSLHHKByj5E=; b=G6VJgqTz/1ysDmVGoDhmISYJ6BTPMJ9Wh0wV1NS1gSWJH+vxF26NZfq/dpKn9gZ11U NRDtsaFWO9j9aAPSNAFnkCyAYs/3GSecwwvwUTeFKPxxNgIpMqb7uOJIykF/WKrC5/CA m//aCFx1QgyfBba7wXC50GeCcLucvMKviPVaaV/qs+/TVA9+ucPBkegQQ9nIAI4OGGXQ vZk5H9Uj7GPHOKqPqpcyLTdyjcphMeR/TBjuYLIzkDSEPCtZXIKFCOZdB74qjpA+LZO/ 8qkeeMK4eyb+sSzQJEYDqm1gmZAN4jsR1hdgpZ2UnsNhObWzLtnxf6+GM5tK0sOBXGsw 8+Ag==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmJ/A8X8QVV5PVG4luFrdPs6owRf0Psfe6eaEc2byYJdlxPtxf3o2LEnKx5gFmAO/CGLauG
X-Received: by 10.152.23.70 with SMTP id k6mr16685247laf.76.1429560177062; Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.107] (tb62-102-145-131.cust.teknikbyran.com. [62.102.145.131]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ls10sm4516484lac.14.2015.04.20.13.02.56 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55355B70.9060704@mnt.se>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:02:56 +0200
From: Leif Johansson <leifj@mnt.se>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Phil Hunt <phil.hunt@yahoo.com>, Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
References: <55317A7E.7050707@dial.pipex.com> <60A4B3BE-C5E6-44E2-A515-2D2DA5EE9E53@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <60A4B3BE-C5E6-44E2-A515-2D2DA5EE9E53@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/fePVAY7_Ruu9KG7SvlesiILha7o>
Cc: General area reviewing team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-scim-core-schema.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-scim-core-schema-17
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 20:03:00 -0000

>> s10.3:  The registration procedure seems overly complex.  If, as stated, an RFC is required in all cases, then the standard (RFC 7035) IETF Review registration policy would seem to fill the bill and there is no need for a designated expert.  Alternatively, Specification Required (with a designated expert as is standard for this case) could be used if other types of specification could be countenanced.  I suspect the requirement for a standards track RFC as a way of modifying an existing value is going to come back to bite us if the original specification was not standards track.  I am not sure this attempt to provide a higher hurdle for modifications is the best way to go about this - In general, IETF Review would, I think, give enough pushback against inappropriate updates without requiring standards track in all cases.  Overall, I recommend that the authors consult your AD and IANA to determine how best to structure the registration procedure.
> 
> [PH] The current document is probably following older IANA practices which I understand have recently been updated. Leif Johansson has suggested we can simplify by updating the document to reflect the new recommendations. I’ll let Leif comment more on this issue.

So I think we could/should probably simplify the IANA considerations
section so as not to define new IANA processes.

I believe SCIM should probably be able to rely on processes defined
in RFC 5226 (and we should have caught this ourselves). My gut feeling
is that relying on Designated Expert Review except for the ietf URN
namespace which requires IETF standards track document.

	Cheers Leif