In
<5(_dot_)1(_dot_)0(_dot_)14(_dot_)2(_dot_)20020227134331(_dot_)00aa5d50(_at_)joy(_dot_)songbird(_dot_)com>
Graham Klyne <GK-lists(_at_)ninebynine(_dot_)org> writes:
Charles,
Thanks for your comments. I accept most of them and will take them into
account for the next revision. I note below a few responses and small
differences of view:
At 10:59 AM 2/27/02 +0000, Charles Lindsey wrote:
I would have expected experimental specs to refer to the author(s) just
like the informational ones.
Maybe ... I was presuming an experimental RFC here, which has IETF
consensus for publication. I don't feel strongly either way.
Does it? I thought publication of an experimental RFC was more or less
automatic, except that the IESG might insist on a disclaimer or, in
extreme cases only, block it entirely.
Would this cover the case where, say, USEFOR defines a header that has a
minor difference from RFC2822 (e.g. msg-id where we forbid a SP, even
after a '\'). Would the Spec then say USEFOR, but the related say "based
on RFC 2822"?
That seems to fit the general intent. I think the primary specification in
this case would be USEFOR, but it would be helpful to cite RFC2822 since it
contains material incorporated by reference. Inevitable, there will be
some judgement calls here.
An alternative might be to list several specifications, perhaps in some
prioritized order.
I still maintain there MUST always be a discussion forum (whether by mailing
list or otherwise).
There is a forum for discussion of new registrations (see section 3.3. and
reference [43]).
But see my remarks about an offical IETF forum further on. The norm should
be to discuss it in a forum pretty specific to the proposal (e.g. an IETF
WG if there is one, or maybe a Usenet newsgroup such as news.software.*,
especially in the case of a proposal for a news header). My original idea
was that if there wasn't a pre-existing forum, then the proponent had
better create one. An IETF-official forum should only be the fallback, or
a place to point people at the real discussion.
I can imagine some specific cases of registration for which a separate
forum does not exist -- e.g. a proprietary design that is widely used in
the wild. How about SHOULD?
Yes, that might work, with the IETF forum as the fallback. The proper
forum would need to be identified in the registry entry.
Hmmm... tough one. This is a requirement for the provisional repository,
and I was trying to make sure it was easy for IANA to check whether they
were authorized to remove an entry (c.f. section 3.5). I would suggest
that a placeholder document that refers to the offline specification would
satisfy this criterion. (In which case, some words here would be appropriate.)
Yes, that would do.
3.3 Submission of registration
I doubt IETF will want to set up a special discussion list just for these
templates, and I doubt many people would subscribe to such a list. Better
to use the existing ietf announce mailing list, with discussion on the
existing discussion list. Or maybe make use of the ietf-822 list.
Fine. I guess that would be a matter for discussion with IESG.
I think you should be sounding out the IETF admin people about this before
proceeding further. As I said, there only seem to be two public IETF lists
in existence at the moment.
3.4 Objections to registration
I think you need to include conflict with other ongoing work within the
IETF as a valid ground.
This list was intended to be illustrative rather than
exhaustive. Ultimately, blocking is a matter for IETF consensus, via the
IESG, so I'd rather not grow the list unless you feel strongly about
mentioning this particular point.
I think it is a case of some practical importance.
4. IANA considerations
I think you should only specify the initial permanent registry. Let people
come forward with their own provisional registrations.
I agree. Did I say otherwise?
It wasn't clear. No harm to make it explicit.
Second, these companion documents are intended to contain registration
templates as described here. I think volunteers are ready to do the email
and http parts -- would you be prepared to do one for news?
It depends whether USEFOR get approved before the registry - could happen
either way around. If the registry comes first, then I could produce
something pretty brief containing the bare minimum from RFC 1036. If USEFOR
comes first, then I would expect to produce the full works, of course.
Third, no they don't exist yet, but work has started on them.
Good. I think we should look closely at the mail one before finalizing the
present draft.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5
Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5