Re: registries and designated experts (was: Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07, major design issue (one or two URI schemes))
SM <sm@resistor.net> Tue, 12 June 2012 16:41 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C87821F859A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 lCkiO62df2-O for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9851221F8630 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5CGfJUR001883; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1339519284; i=@resistor.net; bh=+3apbgsKNvTuPsVqa/7E+GNRpm9CY4CTVlX9qpz6I8w=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=gTY7C3BmoUa5D/BDLiDPLfS3ozJyk/3mcfrlMuArLGmzkDV6RVM5P8FW7Ex1nwDeE TZNm1BR6nxz6q1dWvBeEbAkmRWEVXZEy/+FWtcYAasQI7jibRdxQtN7eBVYsBgJx4m gyl1eFfipmMcrVGmn2uenNA1QzTrliGZoeTHFjRQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1339519284; i=@resistor.net; bh=+3apbgsKNvTuPsVqa/7E+GNRpm9CY4CTVlX9qpz6I8w=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=rEV89Cq4ygZrkBOwT6IzNAHwOLnXAJgZMoTCug0kC5x4fHtUmF3oEJ291Co4+HN1x 7vCry9n3u0GfMjN6GZ5BUAH4QhDFdweuICcrRO3Wk/YYlSgw/MvhOfkfCn5TZOQ8QU E/Vrrg2fSorRaKC5JspLHoPg2TaoRxYw6z6SPWt4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120612073602.09c8cbb8@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:31:16 -0700
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: registries and designated experts (was: Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07, major design issue (one or two URI schemes))
In-Reply-To: <4FD74FFC.3050905@stpeter.im>
References: <4FCDD499.7060206@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4FCDE96E.5000109@cs.tcd.ie> <4FD7083A.6080502@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4FD74FFC.3050905@stpeter.im>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:41:26 -0000
Hi Peter, At 07:19 12-06-2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >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. I'll +1 the above. In a recent review the path followed by the draft is Standards Action whereas the assignment policy is Expert Review. Explaining to the authors that they should not use the assigned value isn't a worthwhile effort given that they have already been through the gate to get the value. The Designated Expert did his job; that is to see that the requirements were met instead of acting as gatekeeper. If you reject assignment requests people will find it simpler not to register the values. If you accept the request people might consider that the specification is fine. The reasons provided for managing a namespace are: - prevent the hoarding of or unnecessary wasting of values - provide a sanity check that the request actually makes sense - interoperability issues The above is at odds with standardization. The last reason does not apply for Expert review. Regards, -sm
- APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07 Martin J. Dürst
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07 Stephen Farrell
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07 … Martin J. Dürst
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07 … Stephen Farrell
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07,… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07,… Stephen Farrell
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07,… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07,… Stephen Farrell
- registries and designated experts (was: Re: APPSD… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: registries and designated experts Dave Crocker
- Re: registries and designated experts (was: Re: A… Barry Leiba
- Re: registries and designated experts (was: Re: A… SM
- Re: registries and designated experts Brian E Carpenter
- Re: registries and designated experts John C Klensin
- Re: registries and designated experts SM
- Re: registries and designated experts Randy Bush
- Re: registries and designated experts John C Klensin
- Re: registries and designated experts (was: Re: A… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: registries and designated experts Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: registries and designated experts Randy Bush
- Re: registries and designated experts Brian E Carpenter
- RE: registries and designated experts Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: registries and designated experts Thomas Narten
- Re: registries and designated experts ned+ietf
- Re: registries and designated experts John C Klensin
- Re: registries and designated experts Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: registries and designated experts Dave Crocker
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07,… Stephen Farrell
- Re: registries and designated experts Martin J. Dürst
- Re: registries and designated experts Stephen Farrell
- Re: registries and designated experts Martin J. Dürst
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07,… Graham Klyne
- Re: registries and designated experts Graham Klyne
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07,… Graham Klyne