Re: [urn] The 3406bis template

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 8/2/13 6:51 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> I just looked back through the template in
> draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-ns-reg-06 in the light of the
> WG discussion this morning.
> 
> The template description is now over four pages long and some of
> the suggestions made this morning will probably make it longer.
> That is pretty scary; it asks for enough information be copied
> into the template and handed to IANA to probably be seen as a
> barrier to registration in some quarters.  

Agreed: let's make the template as simple as possible, but no simpler.

(Marc Blanchet said he would provide some feedback regarding
simplification, too.)

The template is too long in part because it contains instructions and
examples; those could be moved to the body of 3406bis.

> Recommendations:
> 
> (1) When the "instructions to Expert Reviewer" material is
> added, be clear about what is required and what is merely
> expected.  Then reflect that in the sections of the template
> itself.

Yes.

> (2) Number or otherwise identify the sections of the template to
> make references and cross-references convenient.  That will,
> fwiw, keep this document from running afoul of some
> possibly-pending RFC Editor style rules.
>
> (3) Create an internal table of contents for the template itself.

Right now it is structured in xml2rfc as a huge example. That's easily
fixed and will result in a better table of contents for 3406bis itself
(and enable cross-references as you mention above).

Are you also suggesting that the template contain a mini-ToC?

> (4) Explicitly permit most sections of the template to be
> incorporated by reference to a stable external specification
> (stable by at least the "Specification Required" definition, not
> just the RFC Editor one) or by a mixture of text and such a
> reference.  By explicit about which ones cannot (I think the
> first three sections need to be present in the template itself).

Agreed.

> Let's not make this any harder than it absolutely needs to be.

+1

Do you have suggestions on which sections might productively be removed?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/