Subject: draft-nottingham-site-meta-03 --> -04

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:13:47 +0100 (MEZ)

Mark Nottingham wrote:

> ... proposed changes at:
>   http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-site-meta-04.txt
> diff:
>   http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-site-meta-04-from-3.diff.html
>
> It may be that we can reuse uri-review@, but for the time being
> I've specified a new list.

The draft-nottingham-site-meta-04 predraft says:

|Appendix C.  Document History
|
|  o  -04
|     *  Restrict to HTTP(S) by default.
|     *  Shorten review SLA to 14 days.
|     *  Allow for multiple designated experts.
|     *  Identify mailing list for request submission and discussion.

ad 1)  Please make the proper restriction to HTTP(S) URIs evident
       from the document title as well, e.g.:

                        Defining Well-Known URIs
---
                      Defining Well-Known HTTP URIs

       "by default" is inappropriate wording; unless you specify it
       in the memo, other URI scheme definitions won't be changed.
       No 'user' of the proposed registry can simply start (ab-)using
       it for, say, 'dns' or 'rtsp' URIs !

       Equally, the title of the IANA registry you want to establish
       needs to be adapted, for the sake of precision and to avoid
       confusion.

ad 2)  This shortening is a burden for both reviewers and designated
       experts.  Experience has shown that it is in general unlikely
       to get feedback in such short timespans because the community
       is busy in a very bursty manner, and because it is impossible
       to guarantee such short response time from a single
       volunteering individual expert all over the year.
       Having to establish an Expert group for backup does not seem
       worth the effort and management overhead for such a registry.

       I therefore heartly recommend that no review deadlines shorter
       than a month should be specified.

ad 3)  As I said above, the overhead of multiple experts seems to be
       inappropriate for such tiny registry.

ad 4)  Please use  [email-masked]  (or similar)  and
       include an RFC-Editor note requesting pre-publication fixup
       -- that will be decided by the IESG in cooperation with IANA
       (cf. RFC 5226) and need fixup shortly before RFC publication.

Kind regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:24:58 +0900

>         than a month should be specified.

I disagree. While it's not always possible to get some replies in two 
weeks, it's important to set expectations. The longer the review period, 
the higher the chance that people put away the review for "later", i.e. 
never.

Also, most other registries I know have two weeks, and I don't see any 
special reason for this registry being much longer.

>         inappropriate for such tiny registry.

It's always better to have multiple experts in case somebody is on 
vacation,...

Regards,   Martin.

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:24:20 +1100

>       needs to be adapted, for the sake of precision and to avoid

This was a conscious decision; as the draft explicitly notes, other  
URI schemes can opt into this convention, so the title would be  
misleading as soon as one did this.

>       than a month should be specified.

As discussed, I and others disagree; the registry needs to be  
receptive, and two weeks is a reasonable expectation to set.

>       inappropriate for such tiny registry.

If the registry is tiny and the work involved in approving a  
registration is slight, what is the overhead?

>       (cf. RFC 5226) and need fixup shortly before RFC publication.

Will do.

Thanks,

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