Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24.txt
Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com> Mon, 31 October 2011 23:40 UTC
Return-Path: <dburnett@voxeo.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E526711E83A9 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.66
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.301, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ePmifeyrqZS5 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from voxeo.com (mmail.voxeo.com [66.193.54.208]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6A1011E83A3 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:40:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [209.237.253.63] (account dburnett@voxeo.com HELO [10.119.5.246]) by voxeo.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.8) with ESMTPSA id 98421897; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 23:40:16 +0000
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20AE5914-7AB8-4EF6-9217-8CD100B135B5@standardstrack.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:40:14 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <07673CAF-FEA9-4BB9-A235-CEFC6B543610@voxeo.com>
References: <4DBFA327.7070404@ericsson.com> <DBDEADE6-F5F4-4A25-B5E5-C857382D29F1@voxeo.com> <4EAE6228.7050501@ericsson.com> <169A8C44-102D-4B0B-A63A-DE88819F9146@voxeo.com> <8034114D-BE0E-4C72-8FD7-2DD437366AE7@standardstrack.com> <D698EAEB-EC5F-4F72-A3DB-DCFCEDF3C380@standardstrack.com> <4EAEB4E0.9000001@ericsson.com> <58E1AEC1-7BF5-48F0-AB2E-C9203CFDECB8@standardstrack.com> <4EAEC070.8060205@ericsson.com> <20AE5914-7AB8-4EF6-9217-8CD100B135B5@standardstrack.com>
To: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Shanmugham Saravanan <sarvi@cisco.com>, Dave Oran <oran@cisco.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 31 Oct 2011 23:40:42 -0000
I think the only change I will have to make is that instead of an RFC defining the value a requester merely needs documentation. On Oct 31, 2011, at 11:37 AM, Eric Burger wrote: > Thanks! > > Dan - got it? > > Done. > -- > - Eric > > On Oct 31, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote: > >> Hi Eric: >> >> I think I understand your motivation, and I believe you now understand that the IANA registry does not warrant any further interoperability. I think you have convinced me that the registry may encourage developers to publish their specifications, something that, otherwise, it won't happen. >> >> As long as you understand that there is no warranty for success, I have no problem. Please proceed with the IANA registry. Make sure that the registry itself contains a contact person and a pointer to the published specification. >> >> BR, >> >> Miguel >> >> >> >> On 31/10/2011 16:24, Eric Burger wrote: >>> This is an area where I think we are violently agreeing. >>> >>> We do not require a specification. That meets FCFS requirements. To >>> make a no-registration-required policy work, we need a self-organizing >>> mechanism that avoids conflicts. Reverse DNS names seems to fit this >>> bill. >>> >>> While we do not require a specification, we do ENCOURAGE publications >>> of specifications. To make that sensible, and to have a place to refer >>> to published specifications, we are establishing a registry. >>> >>> IANA has gotten really good at establishing registries. It no longer >>> takes months or years for them to set one up. Moreover, this is the >>> lowest-involvement kind of registry for them to run, so it is low >>> impact on their operations. [These are two important items for me to >>> consider with my IAOC hat on.] >>> >>> If we are getting into a dogmatic or religious discussion, we are more >>> than willing to give up on asking for a registry that might improve >>> long-term interoperability for the short term goal of getting MRCPv2 >>> published. Even the ITU-T is waiting for this document to become an >>> RFC. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> On Oct 31, 2011, at 10:46 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Eric: >>>> >>>> Although this is a laudable effort, you won't get the expected >>>> results. >>>> >>>> First, because the registry does not require a specification. The >>>> policy (last thing we heard) is First Come First Served, and does >>>> not require a specification. >>>> >>>> Second, a publicly available specification is something that >>>> companies won't do if they don't want to disclose their own >>>> extensions. Instead, they will simply create extensions identified >>>> by their DNS names, and they won't need the IANA registration. >>>> >>>> So, I am even more confused than before. If you want to push >>>> companies to public their specifications, they are not going to do >>>> it because you say it in a standards document. IANA won't help you. >>>> >>>> /Miguel >>>> >>>> On 31/10/2011 14:46, Eric Burger wrote: >>>>> Miguel - One thing I would like to be clear on. We do want a >>>>> registry to encourage interoperability. By saying "use reverse DNS >>>>> names" I do not mean "don't have a registry." Using reverse DNS >>>>> names is a sufficient mechanism for avoiding naming collisions in >>>>> the header space. However, avoiding collisions does not mean we >>>>> foster interoperability. >>>>> >>>>> The reason we want a registry is we want to encourage developers >>>>> of proprietary extension to document them. By having some >>>>> documentation out there, the hope is people will learn from each >>>>> other and hopefully, if something sticks, we can later do some >>>>> standards track work. >>>>> >>>>> We did not mandate registration of an extension to use it. There >>>>> is no protocol police, so there is no point mandating something >>>>> that one cannot test. Using reverse DNS name space does give us a >>>>> high probability of non-collisiion. >>>>> >>>>> Likewise, we did not say, "Developers MAY register proprietary >>>>> headers." That gives people the easy out, and then we get no >>>>> documentation benefits of the registry. >>>>> >>>>> One thing I would offer to additionally lower the bar on >>>>> registration with the goal of improving registrations is to drop >>>>> the requirement that the documentation for the header be published >>>>> as an RFC. However, I would leave that determination up to the >>>>> IESG. >>>>> >>>>> Does this work for you? -- - Eric >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 31, 2011, at 8:18 AM, Eric Burger wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Now I get it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me put it this way: we can create a protocol parameters >>>>>> space and ask IANA to create a registry full of opaque strings >>>>>> that happen to look like DNS names. Collisions are avoided >>>>>> because IANA manages these opaque strings that look like DNS >>>>>> names. Or, we can use DNS names and ask IANA to do their day job >>>>>> of ensuring that DNS names are unique, which they are. >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore, simply saying MRCPv2 will use reverse DNS names is >>>>>> sufficient to ensure a unique vendor name space. If there is a >>>>>> collision, we can let ICANN run the full domain name dispute >>>>>> resolution process. No need to get the IESG or an IETF expert >>>>>> involved. >>>>>> >>>>>> I vote to simply use reverse DNS names. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 31, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Dan Burnett wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Since we are down to only this one comment we can just >>>>>>> top-reply :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The reason we are using this syntactic structure is because >>>>>>> that is what implementers of MRCPv1 are already used to. It >>>>>>> is a convenient way to distinguish among different vendors' >>>>>>> parameters. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, the registry is to ensure there are no conflicts. >>>>>>> Merely recommending that vendors use a particular syntax does >>>>>>> not ensure that they will do so. A (public) registry does, at >>>>>>> least insofar as making it public when they violate the >>>>>>> recommendation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- dan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 31, 2011, at 4:54 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Dan. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> First, I believe I agree with all your previous comments. >>>>>>>> Thanks for addressing it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, back to this comment related to the IANA registration. >>>>>>>> See below. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 31/10/2011 2:20, Dan Burnett wrote: >>>>>>>>> I have removed all but one of your comments below. This >>>>>>>>> comment had not yet been addressed. With this reply I >>>>>>>>> believe I have addressed all of your comments. If you >>>>>>>>> find that I have missed one please let me know. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- dan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On May 3, 2011, at 2:39 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Section 13.1.6 describes a mechanism where >>>>>>>>>> vendor-specific extensions use the reverse DNS >>>>>>>>>> mechanism, for example., "com.example.foo". Then, if >>>>>>>>>> the vendor-specific extension is connected to DNS to >>>>>>>>>> avoid clashes in names, why is there a need for an >>>>>>>>>> expert review policy prior to its registration? I see a >>>>>>>>>> contradiction in having a self-managing registry by >>>>>>>>>> avoiding clashes due to the connection to DNS, and then >>>>>>>>>> having anything else than a volunteer registry. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In the next draft I will replace "Expert Review" with >>>>>>>>> "First Come First Served". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This does not solve my concern. My concerns is why do you >>>>>>>> need at the same time: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a) a self-managed registry, by linking reversed DNS names >>>>>>>> to features >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> b) an IANA-controlled registry. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is a redundancy here. The goal of both is to avoid >>>>>>>> clashes of different features with the same name. If you >>>>>>>> need an IANA registry, then features do not need to be >>>>>>>> linked with their DNS names. If you need a reversed DNS >>>>>>>> names for the features, then their names are self-managed >>>>>>>> and need not be maintained by IANA. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, I still do not understand what you are trying to >>>>>>>> achieve. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BR, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Miguel >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain >>> >> >> -- >> Miguel A. Garcia >> +34-91-339-3608 >> Ericsson Spain >
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speechsc-m… Miguel A. Garcia
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speech… Dan Burnett
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speech… Miguel A. Garcia
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speech… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speech… Miguel A. Garcia
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speech… Dan Burnett
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speech… Dan Burnett
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speech… Miguel A. Garcia
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speech… Dan Burnett
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speech… Eric Burger
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speech… Eric Burger
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speech… Miguel A. Garcia
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speech… Miguel A. Garcia
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speech… Eric Burger
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speech… Miguel A. Garcia
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speech… Eric Burger
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speech… Dan Burnett