Re: [salud] Second draft of changes for "specification required"

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Thu, 05 June 2014 15:22 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 8AEB41A025C for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:22:45 -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 Nevv_D2D07lJ for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46BC11A02DE for <salud@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 08:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.44]) by qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id AdXY1o0050xGWP851fLAY5; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:20:10 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id AfL91o00V3ZTu2S3YfL9DV; Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:20:10 +0000
Message-ID: <53908AA9.1020502@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 11:20:09 -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: <201406041931.s54JVUfD014598@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
In-Reply-To: <201406041931.s54JVUfD014598@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=1401981610; bh=42QzRr5BQ5DBFdY2f+DuC5gVxLC8SxBOhYcTBQCGG7k=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=L9j4lAMrn9K1hHnn/tHYfbx/OBuOGIq92KRbgQK1QPfBjb0LOXhdtC/QEx+In6nsG rA8Ean6OAzXz+uNGioX5VtVppsIpUR10oEnuX1s2PoFEyYzpvO+nysr7H9cPrEGz1N ge+vvna5PoZHQ92Nnmjw57On5NB/FxNRABWlE3ooozfGo3kk8hc9soH9WjIXiM+vb7 jiIiLd0B38956FimtR9z9VUp1EpVCfW9Xj5ToTALU3pb4gte4mExGeolg/NdGCn5f8 FwN3/xM7zyaAIe16diq/ttTUe/RRHhtbH0fiMppCw1/VcIAwLqkQ8GEOdPGCkFm+Bs jkFIoWC0gPGTw==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/salud/9GhDMSM_LIjblxXfB25-Uh8rZZo
Subject: Re: [salud] Second draft of changes for "specification required"
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: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 15:22:45 -0000

On 6/4/14 3:31 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> [as an author]
>
> This is a second draft of the changes needed to change the policy for
> alert-info URNs from "Standards Action" to "Specification Required".
> I think I've found all places in the text that would need to be
> modified.  I've incorporated the changes suggested by Paul and
> clarified the language in a few places.
>
> (Reading the description of "Specification Required" in RFC 5226, it
> seems that usually the specification will be an RFC.  But the RFC
> could be AD-sponsored, or I suppose, independent, which saves quite a
> bit of overhead compared to "Standards Action".)
>
> An 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.
>
> There is also a question about the use of MUST vs. SHOULD in several
> places.
>
> 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>.
>
> Replace this with:
>
> The policy for adding a new standard <alert-category>, or, within a
> particular <alert-category>, a new standard <alert-identifier> or
> pattern of <alert-identifier>s is 'Specification Required' 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:

MUST!

> [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 meaningfully applied.
>
> A new <alert-identifier> that has more than one <alert-ind-part> is a
> semantic refinement of a parent <alert-identifier>, the parent being
> obtained by deleting the final <alert-ind-part>.  The new
> <alert-identifier> has as parent 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 meaningfully 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.

I think I am losing the big picture here of how the standard and private 
definitions relate. I think I need to look at this all together in a new 
version of the draft. Is this new second sentence intended to apply only 
to standard extensions? Why is this paragraph not in a section titled 
"Standard Extension Rules"?

>     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:
>
> 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 (SHOULD?) not duplicate any standard URN or any
> private extension that the organization is aware of.  (In either case,
> the organization MUST (SHOULD?) use the existing URN for its purposes.)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Am I right that this is not (yet) dealing with a change to registering 
<provider>s?

	Thanks,
	Paul