Re: [salud] First draft of changes for "expert review"
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 21 May 2014 16:13 UTC
Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 615DD1A072E for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 09:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
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 Q4bciIGyFoOR for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 09:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A331A0346 for <salud@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2014 09:13:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.90]) by qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 4c2v1o0031wpRvQ5DgDEyM; Wed, 21 May 2014 16:13:14 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 4gDE1o0083ZTu2S3egDEAr; Wed, 21 May 2014 16:13:14 +0000
Message-ID: <537CD09A.7050705@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 12:13:14 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: salud@ietf.org
References: <201405192318.s4JNIKaH003254@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
In-Reply-To: <201405192318.s4JNIKaH003254@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1400688794; bh=IH2+8Uw8MBfD7Ff0XdfJNtxcdMS/8xAxpYphDEHN2+4=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=k8wVmXQm5ZJbfWLK2deRXh0x7F+W3ptbTaXZQP281i5zSqVtHqWmphCH+DoqduYO6 vQLeAyAsh7fbDVdTkBCSU8N9tI115b7k68vbx9cOAZ9Fqc/N8MtpKTOJMxQ4UlwTsj j8AEWoZLgbb2XgpSYkbyl4He855NPQNDqt0MAd1Ju3w+u981SUp5NWLDmgX2isky4W oL8svRNDXDBJkb/vcNy4U/sIWMyNojC/e9uqThNnCA/Yd7rOOVEucglTeg8Un3YFXA BG/+af3PwQtXoqJ0ikOTx3eBqCDr1HMsEhAo4NlLl4tvggZHyHdHJ92eGbka0NpPMP fhy1iTImeI/Lg==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/salud/7phlZLHyxogfk2aAbunwfvMVplw
Subject: Re: [salud] First draft of changes for "expert review"
X-BeenThere: salud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Sip ALerting for User Devices working group discussion list <salud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud/>
List-Post: <mailto:salud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 16:13:20 -0000
On 5/19/14 7:18 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote: > [as an author] > > This is a first draft of changes needed to change the control of > alert-info URNs from "Standards Action" to "Expert Review". I think > I've found all places in the text that would need to be modified. I've looked at 5226, and I think we might want Specification Required rather than Expert Review. Specification Required also calls for expert review, but in addition requires there to be a publicly available specification. More below. > The important question is whether I've captured all of the guidelines > that will be needed by the expert, which are listed in section 10.1. > > What do people think? > > Dale > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 9.1. Registry > > ... > The policy for adding a new standard <alert-category> is 'Standards > Action'. The policy for adding <alert-identifiers>s or patterns of > <alert-identifiers>s within a particular <alert-category> may differ > for each <alert-category>and MUST be defined by the document defining > the corresponding <alert-category>. > > The policy for adding a new standard <alert-category> or a new > standard <alert-identifiers>, or pattern of <alert-identifiers>s s/identifiers/identifier/ > within a particular <alert-category> is Expert Review according to the > guidelines in section 10.1. > > 9.2. Initial IANA Registration > > This document defines the <alert-category>s 'service', 'source', > 'priority', 'duration', 'delay' and 'locale'. The policy for adding > an <alert-identifier> for any of these <alert-category>s is Standards > Action. > > Delete the last sentence. > > ... > 10. Extension Rules > > 10.1. General Extension Rules > > The set of "alert" URNs is extensible. An extension "at the top > level" creates an new <alert-category> (which represents a new > alerting characteristic), an extension "at the second level" creates > a new <alert-indication> value for an existing <alert-category> , an > extension "at the third level" creates a subdivision of an existing > <alert-indication> (that has one <alert-ind-part> ), etc. URNs allow > (in principle) indefinite subdivision of existing <alert-indication> > values, although most of the standard "alert" URNs have only one > level of subdivision and a few have two levels of subdivision. > > Designers of extensions should take care to derive the new URN from > the most specific base URN which has the correct meaning; a new URN > should have no semantic overlap with any sibling URN, i.e., there can > be no calls to which both URNs could apply. > > Replace the preceding paragraph with: > > Extensions, either standard or private, MUST (*** SHOULD?) conform to > the following principles: > > [The following sentences use "is" and "are" rather than "must", > "should", "can", etc. That allows the strength of these statements to > be determined only by the RFC 2119 word in the preceding sentence, and > prevents these statements from setting their own strength.] > > A new <alert-category> is independent of all previously-existing > <alert-category>s; there are potentially calls to which all > combinations of <alert-identifier>s in the new <alert-category> with > all <alert-identifier>s in all previously-existing <alert-category>s > can be applied. "can be meaningfully applied." > A new <alert-identifier> that has more than one <alert-ind-part> is > the extension of a parent <alert-identifier>, which is determined by Is "extension" the right word here? I think perhaps "refinement" or "narrowing". The change will also apply below. > deleting the final <alert-ind-part>. The new <alert-identifier> must > be the extension of the most specific previously-existing > <alert-identifier> whose meaning includes all potential calls to which > the new <alert-identifier> could be applied. > > A new <alert-identifier> has no semantic overlap with any sibling > <alert-identifier> (<alert-identifier>s that differ only in the final > <alert-ind-part>). I.e., there could be no call to which both > <alert-identifier>s could apply. > > The process for defining new standard "alert" URNs is described in > Section 9.1. Currently, all such definitions require Standards > Action. The process for defining new "alert" URNs via the private > extension mechanism is described in Section 10.2. > > The second sentence becomes: All such definitions require Expert > Review. > > 10.2. Private Extension Rules > > ... > Creating private extension "alert" URNs is not a Standards Action and > they are not registered with IANA. > > Once an organization obtains the right to use a particular <provider> > for constructing <private-name>s, it will retain that right forever, > unless it transfers that right to another organization. The > organization defining a private extension is responsible for ensuring > persistence of the meaning of the private extension, and for ensuring > that the private extension does not duplicate any standard URN or any > private extension that the organization is aware of. (In either > case, the organization SHOULD use the existing URN for its purposes.) > > Replace the preceding paragraph with: I previously commented on this. Thanks, Paul > The organization defining a private extension is responsible for > ensuring persistence of the meaning of the private extension. > > Private extensions MUST (*** SHOULD?) conform to the principles of > section 10.1, both in regard to previously-existing standard > <alert-URN>s and in regard to any previously-existing private > extensions using the same <provider> value, and any other private > extensions that the organization is aware of. In particular, a > private extension MUST not duplicate any standard URN or any private > extension that the organization is aware of. (In either case, the > organization MUST use the existing URN for its purposes.) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > salud mailing list > salud@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud >
- [salud] First draft of changes for "expert review" Dale R. Worley
- Re: [salud] First draft of changes for "expert re… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [salud] First draft of changes for "expert re… Dale R. Worley