Re: IANA considerations and expert review across different streams (was Re: [IAB] Call for comment: <draft-iab-rfc5741bis-01> (On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates))
Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> Wed, 03 February 2016 10:11 UTC
Return-Path: <gk@ninebynine.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE351A88D1; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 02:11:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 Eq2ldI27kzog; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 02:11:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay11.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay11.mail.ox.ac.uk [129.67.1.162]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC5A1A88A5; Wed, 3 Feb 2016 02:11:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp6.mail.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.2.206]) by relay11.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <gk@ninebynine.org>) id 1aQuP5-0002Ru-cg; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 10:11:16 +0000
Received: from gklyne38.plus.com ([81.174.129.24] helo=conina.atuin.ninebynine.org) by smtp6.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <gk@ninebynine.org>) id 1aQuP5-000CPQ-MI; Wed, 03 Feb 2016 10:11:15 +0000
Message-ID: <56B1D227.1020305@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 10:10:47 +0000
From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, ietf@ietf.org, iab@iab.org
Subject: Re: IANA considerations and expert review across different streams (was Re: [IAB] Call for comment: <draft-iab-rfc5741bis-01> (On RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates))
References: <20151216174741.5946.14928.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5671FB0F.9010105@ninebynine.org> <56A919AF.8010201@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <56A919AF.8010201@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/e2IjgwydXONcdvzVRuBi-qgvu8Y>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 14:25:19 -0800
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 10:11:25 -0000
Hi Robert, Yes, I thought I was a bit off-topic. FWIW, I've planted a link to this discussion of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wilde-registries/ at https://github.com/dret/I-D/issues/24 #g -- On 27/01/2016 19:25, Robert Sparks wrote: > Hi Graham - > > You raise some good points to discuss, but this particular document isn't the > place to capture the results of the conversation. > > There have been a few other comments on ietf general related to the expert > review infrastructure in particular that would be good to pull into the > discussion. While your primary suggestion crosses streams, I think it would be > good to have the IESG staring at this closely too. > > RjS > > > On 12/16/15 6:00 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: >> On 16/12/2015 17:47, IAB Executive Administrative Manager wrote: >>> This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on >>> draft-iab-rfc5741bis-01. >>> >>> The document is being considered for publication as an Informational RFC >>> within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection here: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc5741bis/ >>> >>> The Call for Comment will last until 2016-01-13. Please send comments to >>> iab@iab.org. >>> >>> >>> Abstract >>> >>> RFC documents contain a number of fixed elements such as the title >>> page header, standard boilerplates and copyright/IPR statements. >>> This document describes them and introduces some updates to reflect >>> current usage and requirements of RFC publication. In particular, >>> this updated structure is intended to communicate clearly the source >>> of RFC creation and review. This document obsoletes RFC 5741, moving >>> detailed content to an IAB web page and preparing for more flexible >>> output formats. >> >> I welcome this attempt to clarify the status of RFCs that are published by >> differing routes. The point of my comment here is to ask if it might be >> appropriate to extend the clarification provided to include the effect of IANA >> considerations actions in RFCs from various streams (that request >> registrations that are commonly associated with standards actions). >> >> My comments here derive from reflection of my role as designated IANA reviewer >> for URI-scheme and message header field name registries, administered under >> guidance of [RFC7595] and [RFC3864] respectively. >> >> Both the IANA URI scheme registry [1] and the message header registry [2] have >> allowance for *provisional* and *permanent* registrations, with the intent >> that provisional registrations are permitted with low overhead so that useful >> information about work in progress is easily made available at a well-known >> location, and permanent registrations are subject to a degree of review and >> practice that developers should feel comfortable to use them in their >> implementation of Internet-facing applications. >> >> There have been a small number of cases in which an ISE RFC publication has >> requested a permanent registration (where the small number here is 2 or 3). >> >> In at least one case, I felt that the lack of IETF review and/or widespread >> implementation meant that permanent registration was not appropriate, but the >> specifics of the guiding RFC did not make this an obviously correct decision, >> and I felt I needed to request wider support for my view. >> >> In at least one other case, despite the lack of formal review, I felt the >> process followed, discussion that had taken place and apparent scope of >> implementation meant that request for permanent registration was appropriate, >> but again I felt the need to solicit support for this view. >> >> My general concern here is that the status of IANA actions in ISE stream >> publications is sometimes unclear, and use of the ISE track for RFC >> publication might be used as an end run-around the expected review process >> that is commonly associated with some registrations. In hindsight, [RFC3864] >> (section 2.1) should explicitly indicate IETF-stream informational RFC >> publication, but at the time this was written, IIRC, independent publications >> were still usually last-called in the IETF. >> >> You might reasonably say that the purpose of expert review is to deal with >> edge cases like the ones I mention, and I'm OK with that. But I'm also aware >> that it is important for decisions and processes to be as transparent as >> possible: if review decisions can appear to be arbitrary or unexpected then >> registrations may be discouraged and the purpose of the registries undermined. >> >> Thanks. >> >> #g >> -- >> >> [1] http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml >> >> [2] http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-headers.xhtml >> >> [RFC7595] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7595 >> >> [RFC3864] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864 >> >> >
- Re: Call for comment: <draft-iab-rfc5741bis-01> (… Graham Klyne
- IANA considerations and expert review across diff… Robert Sparks
- Re: IANA considerations and expert review across … Graham Klyne