On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 09:28:48 -0700 The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 1. While RFC Required forces new registrations through the IETF RFC > process, and might discourage registrations from individuals or > organizations that are unfamiliar with or averse to that process, > Specification Required necessitates the appointment of a Designated > Expert to review the requests and associated specifications. Each of > these policies comes with baggage, and we have to make sure we're > weighing it down with the *right* baggage. > > 2. If we stay with Specification Required we should include a short > paragraph with rough guidelines for the Designated Expert: what to > consider when approving registration requests. If we want the DE to > approve most requests, just checking the associated specifications for > sanity, we need to say that. If we want the DE to put some judgment > into deciding whether the requested parameters make sense and fit into > the usage model, or whatever, we should say something about that. > Comments and proposed text for this are encouraged. > ==================================== After some discussion with Barry, he suggested the following text: "To keep the registration process uncomplicated and to encourage parameters that are in use to be registered, the designated expert should set a low bar for new registrations, confirming mostly that the specification is reasonably stable, readily available, and sufficient to create interoperable implementations. The parameter name ought to make sense for the requested usage, being short but sufficiently specific. The specification needs to comply with this document and the general HTTP specifications, and should address security and privacy implications of the requested parameter." I think that sounds good so that is what I suggest that we go with. Cheers, Andreas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature