Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-06.txt> (Forwarded HTTP Extension) to Proposed Standard

[Andreas Petersson <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:28:48 -0700
The IESG <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 1. While RFC Required forces new registrations through the IETF RFC
> process, and might discourage registrations from individuals or
> organizations that are unfamiliar with or averse to that process,
> Specification Required necessitates the appointment of a Designated
> Expert to review the requests and associated specifications.  Each of
> these policies comes with baggage, and we have to make sure we're
> weighing it down with the *right* baggage.
> 
> 2. If we stay with Specification Required we should include a short
> paragraph with rough guidelines for the Designated Expert: what to
> consider when approving registration requests.  If we want the DE to
> approve most requests, just checking the associated specifications for
> sanity, we need to say that.  If we want the DE to put some judgment
> into deciding whether the requested parameters make sense and fit into
> the usage model, or whatever, we should say something about that. 
> Comments and proposed text for this are encouraged.
> ====================================


After some discussion with Barry, he suggested the following text:

"To keep the registration process uncomplicated and to encourage
parameters that are in use to be registered, the designated expert
should set a low bar for new registrations, confirming mostly that the
specification is reasonably stable, readily available, and sufficient
to create interoperable implementations.  The parameter name ought to
make sense for the requested usage, being short but sufficiently
specific.  The specification needs to comply with this document and
the general HTTP specifications, and should address security and
privacy implications of the requested parameter."


I think that sounds good so that is what I suggest that we go with.


Cheers,
 Andreas