Hi, Larry, and thanks for the comments.
(1) This document only deals with registrations coming from IETF documents — working group products and AD-sponsored individual submissions — and it says that (I guess not clearly enough, and Nico is going to suggest text to improve it). These are being published as RFCs in the IETF stream.
Registrations done by other means are not subject to this at all. That includes any FCFS registrations or Expert Review registrations or Specification Required registrations that are not in IETF RFCs. Not covered here. Also not covered here are registrations coming from RFCs in the Independent stream (which includes April 1st RFCs).
(2) This does not cover how to change ownership. It’s only specifying what to do for new registrations. We hope that by setting change control for IETF registrations with the IETF, it will be less often necessary to change it.
(3) The document acknowledges that there will be reasons to do other than what is specified here, and provides for ADs to allow differences when it makes sense to do so.
I think that covers all your examples. If you think any of this is unclear in the document, I’d appreciate suggested text to improve it.
Barry
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 7:29 PM Larry Masinter <LMM@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm not sure the suggested process would work for problematic cases, e.g.
those where there's an intermediate state for registrations pending.
It seems like in all of these cases the relationship of events and roles of
IANA, document shepherd, IESG, RFC editor, author, AD, WG chair isn't
simple, and needs some flexibility and judgement
1 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-thanks-larry-00 The 418
error code in a registry (from April 1 RFC2324)
(but no coffee: in scheme registry)
Some RFCs not dated April 1 can have the same issues.
2 The change in ownership of application/pdf (RFC 8118) was it necessary?
How else can the owner organization change?
3 The change in registration of text/html from RFC 2854 without obsoleting
RFC
In this case, how to populate other bits of metadata were of some concern
4 The 'duri' and 'tdb' URI schemes
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-dated-uri-10)
can a registration from an I-D be accepted if there's no intention to
produce an RFC ever?
5
https://mailarchive.ietf..org/arch/msg/uri-review/Imkhlr8KwsdRmiWeWopEGPa_UDc
/
Can a registration be based on an archived email containing the
specification?
--
https://LarryMasinter.net
https://Going-Remote.info
