Subject: [Ecrit] Forward of Off-List Service URN Draft Discussions (5)

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:26:39 +0200

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 25. Juli 2006 00:41
An: Leslie Daigle
Cc: Marc Linsner; Tschofenig, Hannes; 'James M. Polk'; [email-masked]
Betreff: Re: Moving forward with the Service URN Draft 

Leslie,

some more questions and comments in line.

>> 5.1  New Service-Identifying Labels
>>    New service-identifying labels and sub-services are to be  
>> managed by
>>    IANA, according to the processes outlined in [4].  The policy for
>>    top-level service names is 'IETF Consensus'.  The policy for
>>    assigning labels to sub-services may differ for each top-level
>>    service designation and MUST be defined by the document describing
>>    the top-level service.
>
>
> This needs more explicit instructions for IANA.  [4] is the generic
> "how you can build IANA registries" document.
>
> If this is supposed to be adding labels to an existing registry,
> that must be made clear:  which registry (e.g., the S-NAPTR
> application service registry, perhaps?).
>

No, this is the label defined in the BNF. An example is 'sos'. Do you  
mean there is a need for more detail than saying 'IETF Consensus'?  
I'm not quite sure what to say here, since it is hard to anticipate  
what top-level services might be defined in the future.

> If this is supposed to be creating a new registry of services and
> sub-services, it should say so, and be more explicit about whether
> registrations are FCFS, or under what circumstances they are
> reviewed (so that IANA can know, objectively, that they are ready
> for assignment) etc.
>

I'll try to add wording, but I'm not sure how much more I can say  
beyond (the new)

Services and sub-services are identified by labels managed by
IANA, according to the processes outlined in <xref target="RFC2434"/ 
 >. Thus, creating a new service requires IANA action.

> IANA *will* prod for clarification at approval time, of course,
> but getting some of that clarified now would help the rest of
> us hapless readers ;-)
>

I will add some additional wording to that section, but am a bit at   
a loss what more to say. We obviously seem to have difficulty  
communicating how the whole thing works, so maybe this isn't an IANA  
section problem.

>> 5.3  Sub-Services for the 'sos' Service
>>    The 'sos' service type describes emergency services requiring an
>>    immediate response, typically offered by various branches of the
>>    government or other public institutions.  Additional sub- 
>> services can
>>    be added after expert review and should be of general public  
>> interest
>>    and have a similar emergency nature.  The expert review should  
>> take
>>    into account whether these emergency services are offered  
>> widely and
>>    in different countries, with approximately the same caller
>>    expectation in terms of services rendered.  The 'sos' service  
>> is not
>>    meant to invoke general government, public information or social
>>    services.
>
> So -- I *think* this is a first service registration in the
> IANA registry -- so it should declare that expliclty.

I'll add a sentence.

>
> But, it also implies "expert review" -- so the earlier section must
> make clearer how that expert review is to occur.   Also, it

The earlier section said that top-level registrations requires IETF  
Consensus, but that each sub-service can define its own policy.

> must be made clear what the expert reviewer, or IANA, is expected
> to do if the services are (or are not) widely offered -- what
> does "take into account" mean?  Does it mean "refuse the registration
> if they are not"?  In my experience, that's been hard to enforce;
> people will push back and ultimately clear definitions of "what is
> enough" are needed.  But, perhaps I've misunderstood, and this simply
> needs clarification so that others do not share my misunderstanding
> upon reading this.

I wish there were a hard line that I could draw ahead of time, but  
then we could replace the expert by an expert robot... I replaced  
'should' with 'must be of general interest'. I also used stronger  
language saying "The expert review should only approve ...".

More later.

Henning

_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit