Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] FW: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-05.txt

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 07:10:45 -0400

--On Wednesday, April 01, 2015 02:40 +0100 Alexey Melnikov
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Under the circumstances that a WG has achieved consensus to
>> use a particular scheme, I think there's sufficient grounds
>> to upgrade its registration to permanent.  I think a request
>> to do so should come from the WG concerned (I think that's
>> doable within the current and new spec), and preferably as
>> part of the IANA considerations for the spec that uses it.
>> That would bring the issue to DE's attention with appropriate
>> context.
>> 
>> I don't think think this gives the DE any greater power of
>> veto than they already have with respect to a WG consensus
>> request to register a new permanent scheme.
> 
> I would think slightly more comfortable if the document has a
> paragraph discussing the above (pretty much using what you
> said).
> 
> But if others don't think this is an issue, I will let it go.

I have read the above several times and am not sure what it
means, so some clarification within the document is definitely
in order.

More important, I think _any_ situation in which a designated
expert or other individual, especially one who is not
Nomcom-designated, can override a consensus decision in a WG or
equivalent is a fundamental violation of our principles and
pushes at the boundaries of "openness and fairness".   We
shouldn't even be discussing such situations in term of how much
"power of veto" the DE has.  I believe the more appropriate
model is to structure things so that, as soon as a WG or other
recognized consensus-development process takes up something that
would normatively define a scheme, the expert review becomes
important advisory input to that process but nothing more.

FWIW, one attempt at defining such a relationship and tying it
to standardization appears in the current version of
draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn, Section 7.2.   I continue to
believe that some similar discussion and model should make it
into draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis, but that spec seems to
have gotten stalled.

    john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 07:10:45 -0400

john

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 10:30:47 +0100

On 01/04/2015 12:10, John C Klensin wrote:
> pushes at the boundaries of "openness and fairness".

I agree, and my use of the phrase "power of veto" may have been ill-judged;  I 
was trying to say that I don't think such exists ;)

 From memory, the revised procedure (and maybe the current) already have it that 
a DE decision can be overruled by the IESG, who (I would judge) are ultimately 
the guardians of the IETF consensus process.  So I think the DE cannot override 
the consensus process.

But I would be happy for this to be clarified.  For example, in section 7.1 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-05#section-7.1), 
maybe add something like this:

"The role of the designated expert in the procedure for permanent registrations 
described here is to ensure that normal IETF open review process has been 
properly followed, and to raise possible concerns about wider implications of 
proposals for the use and deployment of URIs.  Nothing in the procedure empowers 
the Designated Expert to override properly arrived-at IETF or working group 
consensus."

> ...   We

In practice, my comments tend to be early input to the last-call process, and I 
think it would be fine in principle for that to be made explicit.  But there are 
also circumstances where the role of the DE to approve permanent registration of 
something that has NOT been through the IETF consensus process - I think we'd 
need to be careful not to disrupt that aspect of the process.

> into draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis, but that spec seems to

You mean 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-11#section-7.2 ?

I'm seeing:

"For namespaces or their definitions that are intended to become standards
    or normative components of standards, the output of the Expert Review
    process is intended to be a report, rather than instructions to IANA
    to take action (see below)."

and

"If standardization is anticipated, the designated
        experts will prepare a report and forward it to the appropriate
        standards approval body (the IESG in the case of the IETF) and
        IANA will register the requested NID only after receiving
        directions from that body and a copy of the expert review report."

I'm OK with this in principle but have a couple of possible concerns:

1. "prepare a report" starts to sound a bit heavyweight.  If we can be clear 
that a "report" may be a short email at the level of "this is fine" or "I have 
concerns with <foo> and <bar>" then it's OK.  But if you envisage something more 
formal then that could (from my perspective) seriously impair my ability to 
perform the DE role.

2. I am not sure that it is appropriate for the IETF to have a procedure that 
requires us to become formally involved in the machinations of external 
standards bodies.  We already have and recommend submissions to the URI-review 
list, and the registration procedures already operate to promote dialog with 
external bodies (or individuals) who wish to make permanent registrations, so 
I'm unconvinced that greater formality is needed vis-a-vis interaction with 
external standards bodies.

What I might do is suggest that external standards bodies make initial 
registration requests early/ier in their process so that they can receive and 
respond to feedback while there is still scope to do so within the constraints 
of their process.  For example, to submit a permanent registration request early 
on the understanding that it may initially be accepted provisionally, and 
upgraded to permanent as and when any concerns raised are resolved (including 
progression to the appropriate status by the requesting organization).

#g
--

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 10:30:47 +0100

You mean 

I'm seeing:

and

#g
--

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 14:06:08 -0400

--On Thursday, April 02, 2015 10:30 +0100 Graham Klyne
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
>> Nomcom-designated, can override a consensus decision in a WG
>> or equivalent is a fundamental violation of our principles and
> I agree, and my use of the phrase "power of veto" may have
> been ill-judged;  I was trying to say that I don't think such
> exists ;)
>...
 
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-
> 05#section-7.1), maybe add something like this:
> 
> "The role of the designated expert in the procedure for
> permanent registrations described here is to ensure that
> normal IETF open review process has been properly followed,
> and to raise possible concerns about wider implications of
> proposals for the use and deployment of URIs.  Nothing in the
> procedure empowers the Designated Expert to override properly
> arrived-at IETF or working group consensus."

That would work for me and, IMO, considerably improve the
document.

>> ...   We
>> shouldn't even be discussing such situations in term of how
>> much "power of veto" the DE has.  I believe the more
>> appropriate model is to structure things so that, as soon as
>> a WG or other recognized consensus-development process takes
>> up something that would normatively define a scheme, the
>> expert review becomes important advisory input to that
>> process but nothing more.
> 
> In practice, my comments tend to be early input to the
> last-call process, and I think it would be fine in principle
> for that to be made explicit.  But there are also
> circumstances where the role of the DE to approve permanent
> registration of something that has NOT been through the IETF
> consensus process - I think we'd need to be careful not to
> disrupt that aspect of the process.

Agreed.  

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-urnbis-rfc2141bis-urn-1

Yes.

> 1. "prepare a report" starts to sound a bit heavyweight.

I didn't like it either, but it was the best I could come up
with when I was writing that.  Better wording would be welcome.
However, unlike the URI registration case in which the
presumption is that any formal standards process would be within
the IETF, the URN namespace registration text anticipates
handing off final review and approval to what the media type
registration procedure calls "recognized standards bodies" when
the namespaces themselves are under the control of those bodies.
In some of those cases, especially if the DE concludes that the
registration proposal is a hopeless mess, a "report" is going to
be precisely what is needed.  My hope is that we can avoid any
tendencies to overspecify that but the motivation is the same as
it was with media types: if a namespace registration shows up
that involves highly technical matters that are under the
control of, or standardized by, some competent and recognized
standards body or scientific group, having the IETF demonstrate
community ignorance by debating the issues is not helpful to
anyone.

>   If
> we can be clear that a "report" may be a short email at the
> level of "this is fine" or "I have concerns with <foo> and
> <bar>" then it's OK.  But if you envisage something more
> formal then that could (from my perspective) seriously impair
> my ability to perform the DE role.

See above.  I would hope that whatever reporting would occur
would be appropriate to the circumstances.  Certainly, under the
obvious circumstances (and remembering that the issue of
delegation to other standards bodies is presumably not an issue
for URI scheme registrations), "this is fine", "I don't see any
issues", etc., would be perfectly reasonable "reports".

Again, text suggestions for the URN namespace version of this
would be very welcome.

> 2. I am not sure that it is appropriate for the IETF to have a
> procedure that requires us to become formally involved in the
> machinations of external standards bodies.  We already have
> and recommend submissions to the URI-review list, and the
> registration procedures already operate to promote dialog with
> external bodies (or individuals) who wish to make permanent
> registrations, so I'm unconvinced that greater formality is
> needed vis-a-vis interaction with external standards bodies.

First, what was anticipated was closer to a delegation and
handoff rather than "involved with the machinations".  Second,
we've had provisions equivalent to this for many years (see,
e.g., the discussion in Section 2.1.5 of RFC 2048).  The
thinking that drove that model ran something like this: Suppose
the IAU decided it need a media type for subplanetary objects or
IUPAC decided it needed one for chemical synthesis of some
flavor.  Noting that examples like that are actually far more
likely for URN namespaces than for media types, while an Expert
Review (and, if appropriate, advice) about whether the template
was adequate and whether suggestions about format or syntax were
in order, IETF debates about what objects or processes were to
be included in the namespace or how they were to be named would
not be helpful and might turn into a public embarrassment.
Consider ISBNs as an example: I would hope that a Designated
Expert would offer advice about the tradeoffs between allowing
NSS strings both with and without hyphens, including those
involving the two not being equal when comparisons were made
using generic URI rules with no scheme-specific information or
generic URN rules with no namespace-specific information.  It
seems to me that neither of those is a showstopper that should
block NID registration, but there should be an informed choice
made and that the International ISBN Agency should make it, not
the IETF (or the Designated Expert).

Again, I am _not_ suggesting this is the right model for URI
schemes even though, if things continue in the directions they
seem to be going in lately, I can image some sort of deal being
worked out between the IETF and W3C.

> What I might do is suggest that external standards bodies make
> initial registration requests early/ier in their process so
> that they can receive and respond to feedback while there is
> still scope to do so within the constraints of their process.
> For example, to submit a permanent registration request early
> on the understanding that it may initially be accepted
> provisionally, and upgraded to permanent as and when any
> concerns raised are resolved (including progression to the
> appropriate status by the requesting organization).

For URI schemes, I'm going to continue to try to not have an
opinion.  For a variety of other registration activities,
including DNS RRTYPEs and media types and I believe URN
namespaces, I suggest that "provisional" or similar vocabulary
has not worked out well because things get registered and
deployed and then, when the time comes to standardize or make
them permanent, the claim is made that they cannot be altered
without causing serious disruption.  I am reminded that similar
behavior sequences were part of what caused RFC 6648.

best,
    john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 14:06:08 -0400

Agreed.  

Yes.

best,
    john

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 17:07:17 +0100

John,

> with when I was writing that.  Better wording would be welcome.

Let's see:

...

"For namespaces or their definitions that are intended to become standards or 
normative components of standards, the output of the Expert Review process is 
intended to be a report, rather than instructions to IANA to take action (see 
below)."

I think this may be redundant.  When a request for registration is made, there 
are three possible outcomes:

1. DE says it's OK, in which case IANA makes the entry as requested.  I don't 
see any need to change this.  No "report" appears to be needed in this case.

2. DE has a problem with the request, in which case the reasons are fed back to 
the submitter (which may be an IETF working group or some other standards body). 
  I think this corresponds to your "report".

3. DE has reservations and recommends registration with additional "health 
warning".  In practice, this does not happen until there has been some dialogue 
following (2).

...

"If standardization is anticipated, the designated experts will prepare a report 
and forward it to the appropriate standards approval body (the IESG in the case 
of the IETF) and IANA will register the requested NID only after receiving 
directions from that body and a copy of the expert review report."

I'm finding there's devil in the detail here.  I think the effect of this would 
be (a) to complicate the process, and (b) to reduce the DE's discretion to 
recommend acceptance of a straitforward registration request.

If standardization is anticipated, I look for some indication that the standards 
process (IETF or otherwise) is being followed appropriately, and that is 
sufficiently well advanced (e.g., in the IETF, passing last call for Proposed 
Standard.);  in practice, if the approval for standards action is not yet 
achieved, I recommend provisional registration until that point.

So my suggestion would be, rather than to actually change the procedure to 
introduce formally defined lines of reporting, to provide some guidelines for 
anticipated standards submissions; e.g.

"If standardization is anticipated, the working group or individuals concerned 
are advised to submit an early permanent registration request, rather than 
waiting until the standardization process has run its course.  IANA will pass 
this to the DE who may recommend provisional registration until the 
specification is approved as a standard.  This will provide opportunity for 
feedback while specification development and review is still active, and the 
submitter(s) are still in a position to respond to any issues that might be 
raised.  If and when the specification is approved as a standard, the submitters 
should submit a request to change the registration status to permanent."

I think something like this can work for any standardization organization or 
process and, in conjunction with the previous text suggested, positions the DE 
as part of the review process rather than a gatekeeper with power of veto over 
the standards process.

(I note that, currently, there is an arrangement that IANA will send me an early 
review request when an IETF  document goes to last call with a URI scheme 
registration request, so that my comments can be fed into the last call 
discussions.  But this wouldn't work so easily for other standards organizations.)

> the namespaces themselves are under the control of those bodies.

Actually, that's my understanding of the URI scheme registration process.  For 
example, I would expect to give careful consideration to a permanent scheme 
proposed by a W3C working group.

> community ignorance by debating the issues is not helpful to

That's pretty much what happens now.  Maybe there's scope for some additional 
guidance, e.g.

"If the DE feels unable to recommend acceptance of a requested permanent 
registration, they should respond to IANA stating this, along with their reasons 
and, if possible, what changes the submitter might be able offer to improve the 
submission, which IANA in term will relay to the submitter.  In cases where some 
discussion seems needed, the DE can also respond directly to the contact named 
in the submission (also advising IANA of this).  In such situations, the scheme 
may be registered provisionally while discussions are in progress."

I think this could cover pretty much the additional points and scenarios you 
discuss below.  There has already been some "corridor discussion" that including 
more helpful guidance might be more effective than creating a more detailed 
process (this was some time ago, and not much has happened since; we started to 
create a guidance FAQ on the IETF Wiki, but that initiative fizzled out.).  I 
also try to frame the DE's input as "recommendation" rather than "instruction" 
to IANA.

> behavior sequences were part of what caused RFC 6648.

Well, I think that's always a tension.  Implementers will implement, then 
deploy!  The (perceived) failure of the old 'X-' convention was a big part of 
what lead to this more open, tiered style of registry.

#g
--

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 18:55:38 +0000

Graham wrote: 
> this to the DE who may recommend provisional registration until the specification
> is approved as a standard.  This will provide opportunity for feedback while
> specification development and review is still active, and the
> submitter(s) are still in a position to respond to any issues that might be raised.
> If and when the specification is approved as a standard, the submitters should
> submit a request to change the registration status to permanent."
>
> process and, in conjunction with the previous text suggested, positions the
> DE as part of the review process rather than a gatekeeper with power of veto over the standards process.
> 
> registration request, so that my comments can be fed into the last call discussions.
> But this wouldn't work so easily for other standards organizations.)

That seems like fine advice, and since it's not mandatory and roughly matches
how things work now for IETF standards as you've explained, I've accepted
this text into -06.

>> registration proposal is a hopeless mess, a "report" is going to be 
>> precisely what is needed.  My hope is that we can avoid any tendencies 
>> to overspecify that but the motivation is the same as it was with 
>> media types: if a namespace registration shows up that involves highly 
>> technical matters that are under the control of, or standardized by, 
>> some competent and recognized standards body or scientific group, 
>> having the IETF demonstrate community ignorance by debating the issues 
>> is not helpful to anyone.
>
>That's pretty much what happens now.  Maybe there's scope for some additional guidance, e.g.
>
> in the submission (also advising IANA of this).  In such situations, the scheme may
> be registered provisionally while discussions are in progress."

My opinion is that the above is not required given the other two paragraphs
you suggested, i.e. the one quoted farther above, plus your earlier suggestion of
"The role of the designated expert in the procedure for permanent registrations 
described here is to ensure that normal IETF open review process has been properly 
followed, and to raise possible concerns about wider implications of proposals for the
use and deployment of URIs.  Nothing in the procedure empowers the Designated 
Expert to override properly arrived-at IETF or working group consensus."

Anything beyond those is really no different from any other Expert Review registry,
and further details are, in my view, best done by a separate registry-agnostic 
document about Expert Reviews, e.g. a new draft titled, say,
"Guidelines for IANA Designated Experts".

Dave

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 19:05:07 +0000

Graham Klyne wrote:
> proposals for the use and deployment of URIs.  Nothing in the procedure 
> empowers the Designated Expert to override properly arrived-at IETF or working group consensus."

Accepted in -06 except
 s/IETF open review process/open review process/
since a permanent registration might come from W3C or another SDO.

Dave

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:07:00 +0100

(Small comment below.  In summary: +1.)

> "Guidelines for IANA Designated Experts".

I agree that's pretty much redundant in light of the other comments.  I was 
responding point-by-point to what I felt were legitimate observations, and 
realized at the time I was probably repeating myself somewhat.

#g
--