Subject: [Ecrit] Service URN IANA Policy

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:36:45 +0300

Hi all, 

we discussed the need to change the IANA allocation policy for the
definition of new top-level services within this working group a few
times. With the
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-forte-ecrit-service-urn-policy-00
proposal Henning and Andrea have describe the modification. We would
change the allocation policy of top-level services from "Standards
Action" to "Expert Review". 

The policy for assigning labels to sub-services is left unchanged and
may differ for each top-level service designation and must be defined by
the document describing the top-level service. For the Service URN RFC
(RFC 5031) two sub-services are defined, namely 'sos' and 'counseling'.
The policy for adding sub-services to the 'sos' and the 'counseling'
services, as defined in RFC 5031, is "Expert Review".

In order to progress draft-forte-ecrit-service-urn-policy-00 we would
like to know whether someone has problems with this allocation policy
change.

Ciao
Hannes & Marc

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:44:22 -0700

Howdy,

I don't have any problems with this allocation policy, but I see two
things in the draft that should probably change.  The appointment
should be by the IESG, not the RAI area director or directors; this is
the traditional appointment mechanism and it allows other ADs to
contribute, even if RAI leads.  For services that are not SOS-related,
other areas may have significant input.  Second, some text in the
document that describes the conditions under which new entries are
approved or denied is very useful, as it guides the later incumbents
in the role.  In the URI space, for example, there are two strains of
thought about minting new schemes:  one is that it should be
restricted to cases which absolutely cannot be met by an existing
scheme; the second is that the schemes will be minted anyway and that
registration largely serves to avoid interoperability problems.
Having the working group provide general guidance on this point is
very useful, in my opinion.

My two cents,

Ted

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Ecrit mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>