Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Service URN IANA Policy

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:45:39 -0500

Picking up an earlier thread...

Ted,

are you looking for general guidance for all top-level service URNs,  
present and future, or as a meta-requirement, i.e., each top-level  
service should provide guidance on whether more "liberal" or  
"conservative" policies are appropriate? For example, for emergency  
services, "conservative" seems appropriate, while for our point-of- 
interest services (hotels, restaurants, banks, ...), a more liberal  
policy, with a lower threshold, seems to be more in keeping with the  
necessarily imprecise definitions of such services.

Henning

On Sep 30, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:

> 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.
>

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:47:41 -0800

Hi Henning,

Sorry for the delay in replying.  I am looking for guidance to the
expert who reviews whether or not a top-level-service URN goes in.
The advice to the expert reviewer for the sub-services would
presumably be useful as well, but it can't really go into this
document and can't be required since the introduction of
top-level-service URNs  no longer requires a document.  One advantage
of requiring a document is ensuring that the document can contain
advice on the sub-service, but that may not be the right trade-off.
If we did go that way, I would argue for "specification required"
rather than standards action.

regards,

Ted

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]> wrote:
> are you looking for general guidance for all top-level service URNs, present
> and future, or as a meta-requirement, i.e., each top-level service should
> provide guidance on whether more "liberal" or "conservative" policies are
> appropriate? For example, for emergency services, "conservative" seems
> appropriate, while for our point-of-interest services (hotels, restaurants,
> banks, ...), a more liberal policy, with a lower threshold, seems to be more
> in keeping with the necessarily imprecise definitions of such services.
>
> Henning
>