Re: [urn] Review period ... draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-reg-02
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Sun, 25 March 2012 23:49 UTC
Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E86EC21E8018 for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.44
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.44 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.141, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 hqL+DWSqaZ3Z for <urn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E348F21F8447 for <urn@ietf.org>; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from squire.lan (unknown [82.66.240.205]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D9024005B; Sun, 25 Mar 2012 18:02:31 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4F6FAF09.5040903@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:49:29 +0200
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alfred � <ah@TR-Sys.de>
References: <201203252055.WAA20581@TR-Sys.de>
In-Reply-To: <201203252055.WAA20581@TR-Sys.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4
OpenPGP: url=https://stpeter.im/stpeter.asc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: urn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [urn] Review period ... draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-urn-reg-02
X-BeenThere: urn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Revisions to URN RFCs <urn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn>
List-Post: <mailto:urn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn>, <mailto:urn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 23:49:35 -0000
On 3/25/12 10:55 PM, Alfred � wrote: > Leslie, > please see my remarks inline below. > > >> Hi, >> >> This document questions the 2-week mailing list review period for >> formal namespace registrations, suggestion 4 weeks (or possibly 8). >> >> First, that process came from what was standard/accepted practice at the >> time of writing the first document (RFC2611). That was over a decade >> ago -- and maybe we all read mail a little more regularly then ;-) >> >> I sort of wonder if there isn't generally a better mechanism, overall. >> What gets experts' attention these days? Do we need an RSS feed? >> Tweets? (!). >> >> All in all, I agree that reviews don't generally happen within 2 weeks. >> Some of that is because the current designated expert hasn't been >> paying adequate attention, and should be replaced. [...] > > I think it's essential for the process to not appear to be too much > centered on the decision-forming by the "magic" expert -- community > review and feedback should help the expert and show the prospective > registrants (communities) that there isn't a high-handed single > authority (the magic Expert) at work but that some sort of community > (IETF) consensus is emerging on what is good or less good in proposals. > Third-party reviews and feedback on the urn-nid list IMO are needed in > support of the expert, and it usually needs more time than the > previous 2 weeks admit. > If the community is not able to help the Expert within the timeframe > expected by the procedural rules, it's not the fault of the Expert, > and not a priori an indication that the Expert needs to be replaced. > It's either a problem of the community or the procedural rules, or both. > :-) > >> [...] But then, authors >> don't come back quickly with updates, either, so there wind up being >> iterations before things are actually signed off. I don't actually >> know that 4 or 8 weeks would capture that whole phase. > > Well, one important aspect seems to me that most individuals > participating actively in the IETF are volunteers that have a day job > to perform with varying, but frequently very high priority, and that > the decreasing participation from acedemia (at least relative to the > entire IETF community) means that there are more folks out there that > cannot dedicate time to IETF purposes at their on will. > > (For comparison: I assume that many of the subscribers to the URN list > read the messages from the list, but less than a tenth of them seem > to read the documents and provide feedback.) > > >> What I've seen (as the designated expert that needs to be replaced): >> >> + namespace proposals that don't get published as I-D's >> -- Step 0: please publish this as an I-D >> >> + namespace proposals that don't follow the correct version of the RFC >> -- authors need guidance about current version >> >> + namespace proposals that need to be cleaned up in terms of having >> reasonable explanations in the Considerations sections >> -- offer guidance and repeat >> >> + namespace proposals that come in through *other* IETF wgs, and never >> get put on the urn-nid mailing list >> -- need AD help to get them to the URN reviewers > > Section 4.3 (2nd half) of the document already says: > > | Before publication can be requested, however, the draft Namespace > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | specification document must undergo an Expert Review process > | [RFC5226] pursuant to the guidelines written here (as well as > | standard RFC publication guidelines). [...] > | [...] > | The proposed > | template (including a pointer to a readily available copy of the > | registration document) should be sent to the urn-nid@ietf.org mailing > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | list for review. [...] > | > | Working groups generally SHOULD seek early expert review for a > | Namespace definition document, before they hand it over to the IESG, > | and individual applicants are also advised to seek expert comments > | early enough. The aforementioned list can be contacted for informal > | advice at any stage. > > Does that need more emphasis in the draft? > For instance, do we need "SHOULD" or even "MUST" in place of the > "should" in the second sentence quoted above ? > > >> >> What I have *not* seen, surprisingly (but pleasantly): >> >> + a lot of discussion about whether something really should be a URN >> namespace. Hurrah. > > Maybe the perceived need for third parties to seek help from some > "guide" to the IETF processes helps, and writing an I-D seems to be > seen as a significant hurdle already these days ... > > Nevertheless, IIRC, there _have_ been a few cases where > "URN Namespace" vs. "URI Scheme" vs. "not in the IETF at all" > in fact has been an issue. Alfred, I like your emphasis on the community. However, we've also found that it helps to have a few Designated Experts who are actively responsible for reviewing registration requests, because sometimes the amorphous "community" does not come together to review things at all. I think a 2-week review period is fine. That means "someone will review your request within 2 weeks (and raise issues or tell you it looks OK". It does not mean "we promise that all issues raised during the review period will be solved within 2 weeks". Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
- [urn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc3406bis-ur… internet-drafts
- [urn] Namespace and Community Considerations Re: … Leslie Daigle
- [urn] Review period Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ur… Leslie Daigle
- [urn] Authorship Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-urnbi… Leslie Daigle
- Re: [urn] Namespace and Community Considerations … Alfred Hönes
- Re: [urn] Review period ... draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc… Alfred Hönes
- Re: [urn] Authorship Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-u… Alfred Hönes
- Re: [urn] Authorship Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-u… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] Review period ... draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] Namespace and Community Considerations … Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [urn] Review period Re: I-D Action: draft-iet… Juha Hakala