Subject: [mile] early AD review of mile-iodef-xmlreg

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:26:40 -0400

Just some nits that will undoubtedly result in some extended process 
discussion with IESGers:

1) Please add "Updates: 5070" to the header.  I think that somebody will 
claim we're changing the registry in RFC 5070 hence it's updating 5070. 
  If for some reason it goes the other way and somebody argues it's not 
updating 5070, having LCed something with an updates header and then 
removing it will probably avoid the question about whether another IETF 
LC is needed.

2) Add some text to the IANA consideration section that instructs them 
to point to this document in the reference column for the 
urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:iodef-1.0 row.  I'm sure IANA do this 
regardless, but recently some IESGers have had IANA considerations on 
the brain and it's better to be explicit about it.

spt

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:13:13 -0400

It's also just dawned on me that adding a second expert reviewer will 
cause some interesting issues with the registry.  I've cued the IANA 
folks about this so they'll be looking for it.  Here's the issue:

Right now you get to the XML namespaces/schemas through this page:
https://www.iana.org/protocols
Jari Urpalainen is listed as the XML schema expert reviewer
to get to the iodef schema use the schema link:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/schema.html
so now we'll have to add the IODEF Expert Reviewer somewhere in the 
iodef row and it'll need to be clear that the reviewer is not in lieu of 
Jari it's in addition to Jari.  It'll also needs to be clear that the 
IODEF expert reviewer is only reviewing for IODEF-correctness and that 
Jari gets the last word on the XML.  Not sure if we need conflict 
resolution text.

Again, this is just a heads up - nothing to do now.  I'm sure some 
wording will be needed in the IANA considerations section, but they'll 
help write it.

spt

PS - Sorry to expose all this process gunk to the WG, but I don't want 
anybody to be surprised later on.

On 4/26/12 11:26 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> mile mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile
>

---

From: Brian Trammell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:55:10 +0200

Hi, Sean,

Thanks for the review! A couple of replies, inline...

Cheers,

Brian (author hat)

On Apr 26, 2012, at 7:13 PM, Sean Turner wrote:

> It's also just dawned on me that adding a second expert reviewer will cause some interesting issues with the registry.  I've cued the IANA folks about this so they'll be looking for it.  Here's the issue:
> 
> so now we'll have to add the IODEF Expert Reviewer somewhere in the iodef row and it'll need to be clear that the reviewer is not in lieu of Jari it's in addition to Jari.  It'll also needs to be clear that the IODEF expert reviewer is only reviewing for IODEF-correctness and that Jari gets the last word on the XML.  Not sure if we need conflict resolution text.

Good point. I already talked to Michelle Cotton at IANA about _how_ the check should be implemented. This is the origin of the text in this document (which was _not_ in the mile-template revision of the language): "...to be noted in the most appropriate way" as opposed to inserting a note in a specific place at the top of the registry (where there is no present annotation of any expert). We suspect the note would be put next to the note designating the schema expert. 

The document (section 2) also says changes for IODEF are subject to an "additional" review, though indeed it should be made explicit that this review is only for IODEF-correctness, as well.

> Again, this is just a heads up - nothing to do now.  I'm sure some wording will be needed in the IANA considerations section, but they'll help write it.
> 
> spt
> 
> PS - Sorry to expose all this process gunk to the WG, but I don't want anybody to be surprised later on.
> 

Done in working copy of -01 rev...

>> the brain and it's better to be explicit about it.

Done in working copy of -01 rev...

I'll wait for the end of LC (next Wednesday) before posting a new revision.