Re: Question: well-known URI registration for a non-public specification

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sat, 28 May 2016 02:08 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1EB12B050 for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2016 19:08:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24BUSkVvaNSR for <wellknown-uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2016 19:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 491E412B008 for <wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 May 2016 19:08:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.109] (unknown [120.149.194.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 18BEC22E255; Fri, 27 May 2016 22:08:12 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: Question: well-known URI registration for a non-public specification
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <b768c9388db64fe8b6c98e767a394e8b@HE1PR9001MB0170.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 12:08:09 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D6AFA214-CE4F-4A77-A3C2-DFE45D0C88FF@mnot.net>
References: <b768c9388db64fe8b6c98e767a394e8b@HE1PR9001MB0170.MGDPHG.emi.philips.com>
To: "Dijk, Esko" <esko.dijk@philips.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wellknown-uri-review/VG-FIeUGN-EwJCzll_ynSx7WC8U>
Cc: "wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org" <wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Well-Known URI review list <wellknown-uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wellknown-uri-review>, <mailto:wellknown-uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wellknown-uri-review/>
List-Post: <mailto:wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wellknown-uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wellknown-uri-review>, <mailto:wellknown-uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 02:08:27 -0000

Hi Esko,

As per Section 5.1, the registry has a policy of "Specification Required", defined in RFC5226:

"""
      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.
"""

Regards,



> On 27 May 2016, at 7:55 PM, Dijk, Esko <esko.dijk@philips.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear reviewers,
>  
> On behalf of Thread Group (www.threadgroup.org) I'm investigating the registration of the URI /.well-known/thread , to be used in the Thread protocol which is defined by this organisation. However the specification is non-public. Is it possible to register for a well-known URI as per RFC 5785 in the "Well-known URIs" registry?
>  
> The RFC text states "Specification document(s):  Reference to the document that specifies the field" , which would be a reference to a non-public document only available to members. Such as "The Thread specification 1.x as defined by Thread Group, accessible to members, 2016" would be the reference. On the other hand all current entries seem to point to public specifications by URL though this is not strictly required according to the RFC.
>  
> best regards,
>  
> Esko Dijk
> Senior scientist / Connectivity architect
> Philips Lighting Research
>  
> High Tech Campus 34, 5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands
> Tel: +31 6 55408986, Email: esko.dijk@philips.com
> www.research.philips.com
>  
> 
> The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> _______________________________________________
> wellknown-uri-review mailing list
> wellknown-uri-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wellknown-uri-review

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/