>Hello David,
>At 02:52 06/09/21, David Conrad wrote:
>
> >Internally, we use subversion for version control. It would be
> >relatively straight forward for us to provide an opt-in mailing list
> >that broadcasts the contextual diffs of any registry update. We can,
> >of course, also look at other alternatives people might suggest.
>
>If you use subversion internally already, the best way to allow
>differential updates would be to make subversion available publicly.
>I understand that it would have to be considered carefully,
>but it's really the protocol designed for the job.
>
>Also, as an alternative to mail broadcasts, I'd suggest using
>Atom (RFC 4287).
>
>Regards, Martin.
Dear Martin,
David's choices in this matter will:
- either keep the IANA as the Internationalised IETF Externet
referent, with external interoperability managed elsewhere. In that
case knowing that IANA is internally stable and possibly documented
in a formated unique way, will certainly help such external
management(s) and keep the IANA as a serious referential partner.
- or engage the IANA in a comprehensive evolution making it either
the core referent of the whole digital ecosystem or a part of its
distributed referent system (through ISO 11179 conformace or along an
IETF published networked/multilingual equivalent [two areas not
addressed yet as such by the JTC1]).
I know that your WG has a particular role into this due to the size
(and therefore access problem) scaling of your registry. I am glad
that one of the main reason of my opposition to your WG proposition
is at last (18 months) seriously discussed. However, I think this
issue concerns the whole IETF and actually the whole Internet
community. I suspect that David's resources are limited and that his
first orentations may engage our all future. I suggest that this
calls for common attention and IAB guidance, as when the NTIA also
planed to reconsider the IANA.
jfc
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf