Re: [Uri-review] draft-larmouth-oid-iri-02

[Alfred Hönes <[e-mail]>]

John,
firstly, ACK for the -02
which has appeared in the archives in the meantime!


John Larmouth wrote:

> Thanks for this Ira - I will go for "provisional".

I do not believe that this makes much sense, since the 'oid'
URI/IRI Scheme registration is based on ITU-T Recommendations,
which should be considered a rather stable reference with much
support behind it.  -- Or did I overlook something?


>
> I guess I do not need to refer to Graham by name.

Indeed; unlike for URN Namespace ID registrations, RFC 4395 has
made the Designated Expert for URI Scheme review a subsidiary of
IANA (page 10, item 3 of 2nd blocj of steps in section 5.2:
    "IANA requests Expert Review ..."

So the basice step is forwarding the registration document
(or the registration template with a pointer to the draft)
to IANA (loc. cit.)

> Roughly how long would it take for this to get convered to
> "permanent" (assuming that the "provisional" gets approved")?
>
> It seems to depend on it being conververted to a full RFC, which
> sometimes seems to take a long time.  What would be an optimistic
> and a pessimistic estimate, assuming no major objections?
>
> (Just to help with our planning.)

I guess the effort for a later 'upgrade' would be the same
as for a direct attempt to get "permanent" registration.

Independent of the target status, IMO publication as an RFC
would be very useful to have a stable document that can be
referenced, and thus should be attempted.

I expect that one of your aim is to make the 'oid' URI scheme
available for (normative) use in future IETF Standards.
In this case, as far as I can see a Standards Track RFC would be
needed anyway, to avoid the creation of normative downreferences!

Thus, it might even be attractive to immediately try Standards Track.
That would not exclude using the current draft as a registration
document for "provisional" in the interim, and pursuing its
publication as an RFC in parallel.

To go for Proposed Standard, an AD would have to initially support
the draft and ususally personally 'shepherd' it through the IESG,
including the IETF Last Call (LC) procedure.
Thus, support by the responsible AD would be essential.

You should preferably seek early advice from the responsible APP Area
Director (AD), which I assume will be Lisa Dusseault (otherwise she
certainly will quickly refer to her co-AD, Alexey Melnikov).

Note: The most recent contact information for all IESG members ist
  listed on <http://www.IETF.ORG/iesg/members.html> .

The AD may be able to also give you a more realistical estimation
of the time needed for approval as Proposed Standard, given current
workload of the AD and the entire IESG, -- of course only in the
absence theoretically possible significant objections from the IETF
at large, during LC.

Should problems arise, stepping back to a less rigid procedure,
to arrive at a lower level, will be easier than to entirely restart
with a 'higher-grade' procedure .

>
> Thanks.
>
> John L
>
> ...


Kind regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: [phone], Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [e-mail]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+