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

[[e-mail] (Dale R. Worley)]

[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:

[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.

   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.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------