Re: [sipcore] Call for adoption/WGLC: draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy-00
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Mon, 04 March 2013 22:05 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A66421F8C2A for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 14:05:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.471
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.471 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 59xLUVpFJ0e2 for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 14:05:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 390FD21F8A94 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 14:05:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unnumerable.tekelec.com ([4.30.77.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r24M5aKd095351 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:05:36 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <51351AB0.1080005@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:05:36 -0600
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: sipcore@ietf.org
References: <512E35D2.6080400@nostrum.com> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE210701F272E@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com> <9BB7865E-2142-4FC3-B846-A8B03B158635@neustar.biz> <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE210701F2749@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <EDC0A1AE77C57744B664A310A0B23AE210701F2749@FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 4.30.77.1 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Call for adoption/WGLC: draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy-00
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:05:38 -0000
repeating a thought just to make sure it was seen in this context On 2/27/13 7:05 PM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > Brian wrote: >> I don't >> think Specification Required is adequate -- I want IETF experts to review. > If it is specification required then IETF experts will review. > > Specification Required - Values and their meanings must be > documented in a permanent and readily available public > specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability > between independent implementations is possible. When used, > Specification Required also implies use of a Designated > Expert, who will review the public specification and > evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear to allow > interoperable implementations. The intention behind > "permanent and readily available" is that a document can > reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable long > after IANA assignment of the requested value. Publication > of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this requirement, > but Specification Required is intended to also cover the > case of a document published outside of the RFC path. For > RFC publication, the normal RFC review process is expected > to provide the necessary review for interoperability, though > the Designated Expert may be a particularly well-qualified > person to perform such a review. > > So to be clear, it gets review as follows: > > - by the experts involved in the original public specification by some other organization > - by the designated expert > > I am not sure that the designated expert has to be a single expert - it could be several people - the ADs just need to put it in place. That means we have a small number of people that we could identify to delegate review to for the whole community, and the community would trust they would see all the potential issues a proposal brings. In this case, I think we're not there yet, and actually _do_ want full community review. As I said before, I think the right thing to do is take incremental steps with this one. Get some experience with IETF review, and shift to something that only required expert review later. > > Regards > > Keith > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rosen, Brian [mailto:Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz] >> Sent: 27 February 2013 20:13 >> To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) >> Cc: Adam Roach; SIPCORE; draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy@tools.ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Call for adoption/WGLC: draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy- >> 00 >> >> We can fix 1 at AUTH48 if WGLC proceeds. >> >> The document doesn't have to say why a particular management policy was >> chosen. It has to be the appropriate policy that the IETF agrees on. In >> this case, we think an Informational RFC is adequate to add a new >> namespace but doesn't define new protocol behavior. We think IETF Review >> is appropriate, so that we get review by the rather distributed >> constituency that cares about this particular piece of stuff. I don't >> think Specification Required is adequate -- I want IETF experts to review. >> I don't even think Expert Review is adequate, because we do have several >> different classes of people who care about various aspects of this. >> >> While I somewhat agree that 4412 is light on text defining when a new >> namespace is appropriate, it isn't the purpose of this document to rewrite >> that text, but rather to fix a specific problem that holds up other RFCs. >> If the policy is left at Standards Track, it still doesn't define when a >> new namespace is appropriate. It still doesn't define whether an update >> to an existing namespace is required. >> >> We could start an effort to do a 4412-bis to address these issues, but I >> would prefer not to turn this document into that. >> >> Brian >> >> >> On Feb 27, 2013, at 2:48 PM, "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel- >> lucent.com> wrote: >> >>> I do not have a problem with relaxing the criteria and therefore we will >> need an I-D to do that, and therefore a milestone to cover that task. >>> I have the following comments on the document. >>> >>> 1) Editorial. The document states internally that it updates RFC 4412 >> and this is correct. However that information also needs to appear in the >> top left of the document. >>> 2) The document gives no background material on why IETF review has >> been chosen, only that it no longer needs to be standards track (Note that >> I am not convinced "Standards Track" was selected in error). Personally I >> think "Specification Required" would be entirely appropriate, however if >> this is used see comment 3) below. >>> 3) As more relaxed criteria for IANA registration are defined, then >> material has to be defined to support those reviewing the registration; >> for a standards track defined protocol, this should be defined in a >> standards track document. For example RFC 4412 contains no information on >> when a new namespace is appropriate, as opposed to reuse of an existing >> namespaces. I have certainly been involved in discussions as to whether >> the "ETS" namespace is restricted only to usage of "US government >> telecommunications service" or whether another government body in a >> different country with identical requirements can reuse the same namespace, >> or whether they have to define a new namespace, and RFC 4412 does not >> answer this. So the proposed update currently contains no additional >> information (to RFC 4412) on: >>> - what information needs to be provided for a new namespace or >> priority level; >>> - what criteria need to be met for adopting a new namespace or >> priority level, versus reusing or modifying an existing one. >>> 4) Can a new document update an existing namespace with new priority >> levels or other functionality? I believe this would normally be bad >> practice for compatibility reasons, but the document does not cover this. >>> Keith >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf >>>> Of Adam Roach >>>> Sent: 27 February 2013 16:36 >>>> To: 'SIPCORE' >>>> Cc: draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy@tools.ietf.org >>>> Subject: [sipcore] Call for adoption/WGLC: draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy- >> 00 >>>> [as chair] >>>> >>>> During the processing of draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace, the >>>> IESG, authors, and WG chairs determined that the policy described in >>>> RFC4412, section 9 for defining a new namespace (Standards-Track RFC) >>>> was probably selected in error, and that "IETF Review" is likely more >>>> appropriate. The ECRIT working group has already been informed of this >>>> situation, and no parties have objected to a change in policy: >>>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ecrit/current/msg08292.html >>>> >>>> Since this is a policy change to a core SIP header, our Area Director >>>> has requested that the document that formally changes the policy be >>>> processed as a SIPCORE document. The current draft is available here: >>>> >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-rph-reg-policy-00 >>>> >>>> (Aside: ignoring the boilerplate, references, and table of contents, >> the >>>> document is about half as long as this email, and should take less time >>>> to read). >>>> >>>> This message starts a call for adoption in parallel with a working >> group >>>> last call. Both periods end in just over two weeks, on Friday, March >>>> 15th (the final Friday of the Orlando IETF meeting). Please reply to >> the >>>> mailing list indicating support or opposition to such adoption, and >> with >>>> any comments on the document contents themselves. >>>> >>>> /a >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sipcore mailing list >>>> sipcore@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sipcore mailing list >>> sipcore@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore > _______________________________________________ > sipcore mailing list > sipcore@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
- [sipcore] Call for adoption/WGLC: draft-rosen-rph… Adam Roach
- Re: [sipcore] Call for adoption/WGLC: draft-rosen… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [sipcore] Call for adoption/WGLC: draft-rosen… Rosen, Brian
- Re: [sipcore] Call for adoption/WGLC: draft-rosen… Robert Sparks
- Re: [sipcore] Call for adoption/WGLC: draft-rosen… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] Call for adoption/WGLC: draft-rosen… Rosen, Brian
- Re: [sipcore] Call for adoption/WGLC: draft-rosen… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [sipcore] Call for adoption/WGLC: draft-rosen… Robert Sparks
- Re: [sipcore] Call for adoption/WGLC: draft-rosen… Adam Roach
- Re: [sipcore] Call for adoption/WGLC: draft-rosen… Brian Rosen