Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24.txt

[Eric Burger <[e-mail]>]

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
>>> [phone]
>>> Ericsson Spain
>> 
>