[salud] Thoughts about <provider> values

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Fri, 16 May 2014 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@ariadne.com>
X-Original-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD3BD1A0191 for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 May 2014 14:54:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2mJmzUfD5OxD for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 May 2014 14:54:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:212]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB3331A007B for <salud@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 May 2014 14:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta17.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([]) by qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 2jeS1o0061vXlb85Eluko9; Fri, 16 May 2014 21:54:44 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([]) by omta17.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 2luk1o0011KKtkw3dlukqw; Fri, 16 May 2014 21:54:44 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com []) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s4GLsh21010240; Fri, 16 May 2014 17:54:43 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id s4GLsh3g010239; Fri, 16 May 2014 17:54:43 -0400
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 17:54:43 -0400
Message-Id: <201405162154.s4GLsh3g010239@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: salud@ietf.org
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1400277284; bh=Lp15l2rwUQoMo1pszf80UuSeMMmgw1HFCPlgyzJ9IGU=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Date:Message-Id:From:To: Subject; b=CpA5cyAblRtPlYkRrItaId/BPHeqQhfB42gS26PLYw/6UGfMSCLbDgTEe7twzhfFp mLiRUsQUw3zbNToloD1cwu2/N0GrodqyPB1uu8gmSEiiGBOm+4MCmSXiWoFZTa09ab t1rl4/Qu8xSOTJa08Vh2mdo93nQVUdGoIpwg/2wLYdEtLvjtYW2gwiodjvlbCP00cm Ki+P7DSQNFUBcACm2rK7iTcdD44i/ik9tSWd4jbLHr7hmRSGWht4Ft52wF1/fw4Iqu hGWSdDRao+v0lFUNz5yQB5thmXq+mblnKtgKc92lYemA91XdpRdKyWsrS4n7IFbNQD UAsNIDQUi9eOA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/salud/aOtAIqvtC6IPyyIL7keQACOEsqY
Subject: [salud] Thoughts about <provider> values
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: Fri, 16 May 2014 21:54:55 -0000

[as an author]

This is a collection of my thoughts regarding <provider>s.  This
message is to advance our discussion of how to solve the discuss item
regarding <provider> values.

All of the proposals regard the syntax definition of <provider> and
its interpretation.  The choices are:

    1. domain name

    2. domain name ( date )

    3. token
       [the token is defined in a new registry]

Every proposal involves creating an intellectual property right, the
right to create <private-name>s using that <provider>.  In every case,
this right carries a responsibility to manage the use of
<private-name>s using that <provider> according to the rules in the

Choice 1 attaches this right to owning the registration of the domain
name.  Choice 2 makes this right separable from the registration, and
so requires that we describe the right explicitly.  (People don't like
that.)  Choice 3 creates these rights by registration in a registry.

The IETF already uses registries for a number of "private"
identifiers, and as far as I know, the right to use a registry entry
is never clearly defined.  OTOH, we may have the only instance when a
registry entry is used as the base to create a series of identifiers.

If we can get choice 1 approved, I would favor that over choice 3.  It
wouldn't be difficult to edit the text to accommodate that change.
And since we wouldn't need to document the "right to use a <provider>
value" separately, we could eliminate the part of the text that
bothers people.

This would be a substantive change, and we'd have to ask the working