Hello Stephen,
On 2012/06/17 22:33, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Martin,
On 06/17/2012 01:55 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
This time, the situation was somewhat reversed: The expert approved the
registration, and this fact was then used as a claim that IETF Last Call
comments on the item registered were no longer appropriate.
I'm sorry, but that's just not accurate. The specific comment (of
yours) was to the effect that two registrations should become
one.
[Minor detail: It was about merging two schemes. Merging the
registrations is a consequence of merging the schemes, but not the core
issue.]
I believe its fair to say that that is something one
could have expected to be raised on the uri-review list, given
the comments typically sent to that list, and the comments we
got there on our I-D,
I agree that, as you say below, it would have been better if the issue
had been raised earlier. But that's the same all over the place; it
would often have been better if an issue got raised earlier during WG
discussion rather than later, during WG discussion rather than in WGLC,
during WGLC rather than in IETF LC, during IETF LC rather than in IESG
review, and so on. I also agree that nobody would have been surprised if
such an issue had been brought up on the uri-review list.
But that's different from expecting a specific issue to be brought up in
a specific place, and only there.
and so I brought that up when you (who
often comment on that list), only raised this during IETF LC.
[Minor detail: I don't consider myself a "frequent" contributor to that
list. But of course frequency is relative.]
First: I mentioned the issue that having two different encodings (base64
and base16) of the same data was a non-starter *way* earlier. If you
didn't read that, or don't remember that anymore, it's not my fault.
Second: As explained earlier, my comments were part of an Apps
Directorate review. When I'm doing an Apps Directorate review, I'm
setting away time for that explicitly, and try to do a really thorough
job, with a wide perspective. I can do that because I'm only doing one
of these every few months. This is quite different from a registration
mailing list where I'm not the Designated Expert, and can't devote that
much time to each and every registration that comes by.
The Apps Directorate review is also intended to help the Apps ADs. I'd
expect that they want to know everything that a reviewer thinks is
relevant, rather than the reviewer suppressing stuff because he happens
to be on a registration mailing list on that specific topic and didn't
have time to look at the draft when it was passing by on that list.
At no point did I claim that IETF LC comments were no longer
appropriate, and indeed I've been responding al all IETF LC
comments on their merits, including this one of yours.
You didn't explicitly claim that IETF LC comments were no longer
appropriate. And you were indeed quite responsive to many of the issues
brought up, including many other issues that one could reasonably expect
to be brought up on the uri-review@xxxxxxxx mailing list (scheme syntax
issues, escaping/encoding issues,...), and where you didn't say that
these should have been brought up earlier.
But for that one specific issue, you kept telling me things like
"second-guessing the designated expert at this stage seems contrary to
the registration requirements", "process-wise ... your main comment is
late", "let's not ignore the fact that the uri-review list had sight of
this at the end of April", and so on.
On my side, this definitely felt very much like "your comment is
inappropriate at this time" rather than just "would have been great if
we got this earlier".
But,
yes, I do think that your specific issue (essentially, not doing
one of the registrations) would have been better raised
earlier on uri-review, and as the one asking for the registrations
it does feel like having to jump through the same bureaucratic
hoops a second time.
There are a lot of hoops at the IETF. WG discussion, WG LC, registration
reviews where applicable, IETF LC, IESG review,.... It would be good if
we could do with less, but I guess they are all there for a reason.
However, perhaps there is a generic issue in that its not clear
whether one is doing paperwork or getting substantive technical
review when one requests a registration, at least to the
uri-review list. I'm not sure how many other *-review lists
might have the same situation.
Quite a few, I guess. I see three main reasons for this:
1) The description of what the Designated Expert should check and what
not is not clear enough. [For URI/IRI schemes, the IRI WG is working on
an update to RFC 4395, and yours as well as everybody else's comments
are highly appreciated.]
2) Many registries have been criticized for being too strict, leading to
situations where labels are being used without being registered. As a
result of that, the review has shifted from "is this really absolutely
needed" in the direction of "make sure this isn't explicitly harmful".
[This is in particular the case for quite a few registries in the Apps
Area; it may be quite different in the Security Area, in particular for
things such as cryptographic algorithms.]
3) The Designated Expert, and even more the other people on these
mailing lists, are all volunteers, and most have a day job.
While 1) and 2) may eventually be addressed by updating the registry
guidelines, 3) is difficult to fix.
That could be clarified I guess.
As said above, the IRI WG is working on an update of RFC 4395, and
everybody's comments, including yours, are highly appreciated
If that list is just to check
the paperwork, then I'd guess that pretty much all technical
comment ought be re-directed elsewhere.
I'd describe the purpose of the list more as "make sure the basic
paperwork is okay, make sure this is not overly harmful, and provide a
place for technical input". There are many people on that list that can
give technical advice, and quite a bit of it is usually appreciated, so
I don't see why we should exclude it.
If that list is for
substantive technical review, then seeing frequent contributors
to that list first bringing up issues at IETF LC would seem
noteworthy. (I'm not saying such issues ought be ignored, but
they maybe ought be treated as we would the case of a WG
participant making comments on a topic only after WGLC.)
I strongly disagree here. The purpose of registration is not the same as
the purpose of IETF standardization. There are many registries that
contain stuff that "just happened" outside the IETF and would never have
a chance in the IETF, but nevertheless a label is in use and it is
better to get it registered than to deny registration. This may be (just
guessing) different for security stuff such as cryptographic algorithms.
But it definitely applies to many Apps Area related registries (MIME
media types, charsets, URI/IRI schemes, and so on).
Also, a mailing list associated with a registry is not the same as a WG
mailing list. A WG is chartered with creating something new. The main
motivation for WG participants is to shape that "something new", and
most aspects of a proposal will be discussed explicitly on the WG list.
Lurking or occasional participation should indeed not be specially rewarded.
On the other hand, registration mailing lists are essentially "pro bono"
efforts, both for the Designated Expert(s) as well as for every other
participant. It would be highly inappropriate to disadvantage these
volunteer participants in the same way as WG lurkers.
Regards, Martin.