registries and designated experts (was: Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07, major design issue (one or two URI schemes))

Peter Saint-Andre <> Tue, 12 June 2012 14:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 942F021F860F for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c+YnO77SzO2H for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 102C821F85CD for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 515654005A; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:36:49 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:19:40 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120601 Thunderbird/13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <>
Subject: registries and designated experts (was: Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07, major design issue (one or two URI schemes))
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Graham Klyne <>, IETF discussion list <>, "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:19:41 -0000

[change of subject]

On 6/12/12 3:13 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> On 2012/06/05 20:11, Stephen Farrell wrote:


>> I strongly disagree with merging ni&  nih. Though that clearly
>> could be done, it would be an error.
>> There was no such comment on the uri-review list and the designated
>> expert was happy. That review was IMO the time for such comments
>> and second-guessing the designated expert at this stage seems
>> contrary to the registration requirements. So process-wise I
>> think your main comment is late.
> First, if IETF Last Call is too late to make serious technical comments
> on drafts, then I think we have to rename it to IETF Too-Late Call.
> Second, designated experts are there to check for minimum requirements
> for a registration, and to give advice as they see fit (and have time).
> I'm myself a designated expert on "Character Sets", and I have
> definitely in the past approved, and would again in the future approve,
> registrations for stuff on which I would complain strongly if the
> question was "is this a good technical solution".
> Graham Klyne, the designated expert for URI scheme registrations, has
> confirmed offline that he does not see his role as "expert reviewer" as
> judging the technical merit of a URI scheme proposal.

By my reading, the "happiana" discussions [1] over the 12+ months have
led most participants to the conclusion that registration does not imply
standardization, and that it's not the role of the designated expert to
act as a gatekeeper with respect to the technical merits of the
technologies that trigger registration requests. It might be good to
have a wider discussion about the purpose of registries and the role of
designated experts, but IMHO it's not correct to conclude that a
technology is acceptable just because the designated expert didn't
object to the registrations related to that technology.