Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-registry-custodian-01.txt

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:42:15 -0500

FYI; this came up at lunch in Vancouver. Feedback appreciated.

Cheers,

Begin forwarded message:

> From: [email-masked]
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-registry-custodian-01.txt
> Date: 7 August 2012 4:40:44 PM CDT
> To: [email-masked]
> 
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-nottingham-registry-custodian-01.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Mark Nottingham and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Filename:	 draft-nottingham-registry-custodian
> Revision:	 01
> Title:		 Custodial Review Criteria for Designated Experts
> Creation date:	 2012-08-07
> WG ID:		 Individual Submission
> Number of pages: 6
> URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-registry-custodian-01.txt
> Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nottingham-registry-custodian
> Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-registry-custodian-01
> Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-nottingham-registry-custodian-01
> 
> Abstract:
>   This document specifies a set of review criteria for IANA registry
>   Designated Experts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
> 

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:15:13 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 2:42 PM
> To: Working Group Chairs
> Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-registry-
> custodian-01.txt
> 

   Additionally, for Specification Required registries, a Custodian:

That scope is larger than the title or abstract.  I think that scope is
fine; just tweak the title and abstract to accommodate.

   o  MAY approve registrations when it is, in their judgement, apparent
      that a specification will be published

For that one, I would add "and MUST inform the community of this action
via the nominated mailing list." 

After the specification is published (or in conjunction with its
publication),
there isn't a great need to inform the community.  But, we could have a
process
problem if someone's judgement is way off or if IESG unexpectedly slaps 
the document down.

   o  MAY consider specifications other than standards as meeting
      "Specification Required".  References are encouraged to be
      reasonably stable, but references stability on its own SHOULD NOT
      be an impediment to registration, because the Custodian(s) MAY
      update it as necessary.

I don't understand the first sentence, because Specification Required
itself does not require a "standard".  If a standard is required, it
would have been one of RFC5226's more stringent policies like IETF
Review, no?

-d

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 14:42:34 -0500

Hi Dan,

> fine; just tweak the title and abstract to accommodate.

Any suggestions for the title?

> After the specification is published (or in conjunction with its publication),
> there isn't a great need to inform the community.  But, we could have a process

Ack; will add in next update.

> would have been one of RFC5226's more stringent policies like IETF

It's to clarify; I've seen a fair amount of lot of back and forth about what an appropriate reference for a specification is (especially regarding change control, etc.) so I wanted to explicitly state what's appropriate.

I'll try to adjust this language to make it more clear; any suggestions would of course be welcome.

Thanks!

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 17:52:53 -0700

> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 12:43 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Working Group Chairs'
> Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-registry-
> custodian-01.txt	
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 

just drop "Designated Experts", because that constrains the document
to RFC5226's definition of "Expert Review (Designated Expert)".  
Something like these seem better:

  Review Criteria for Registry Custodians
  Registry Custodian Process
  Process for Registry Custodians
  Registry Custodian Procedures

> It's to clarify; I've seen a fair amount of lot of back and forth about
> what an appropriate reference for a specification is (especially
> regarding change control, etc.) so I wanted to explicitly state what's
> appropriate.
> 

I would just quote RFC5226, which seems clear enough to my reading, 
something like:

  <t>As explained in Section 4.1 of <xref target="RFC5225"></xref>, 
   "Specification Required" does not require a standard document; it
   requires
<list style="empty">
<t>permanent and readily available public specification, in 
sufficient detail so that interoperability between independent 
implementations is possible.</t>
</list>
   Thus, a Custodian MAY ... <<continue with the rest of your text>>

-d

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:56:44 -0400

> to RFC5226's definition of "Expert Review (Designated Expert)".  

No, it doesn't.  Both "Expert Review" and "Specification Required"
involve a Designated Expert.  The instant document just discusses a
special kind of Designated Expert, appropriate to both policies.

IMHO, no change is needed.

>    Thus, a Custodian MAY ... <<continue with the rest of your text>>

I think the issue here is that people periodically believe that while
"Specification Required" does not require an IETF document, it does
require equivalent output from some other SDO.  That is of course not
the case, and I think quoting 5226 as you suggest ought to be sufficient
to reinforce that point.

-- Jeff

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 14:17:45 -0700

> Behalf Of Jeffrey Hutzelman
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 1:57 PM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Working Group Chairs'; 'Mark Nottingham'
> Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-registry-
> custodian-01.txt
> 
> > > > That scope is larger than the title or abstract.  I think that
> scope
> > > is

The potential for confusion is http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1
which lists the assignment policies and only one of them says "Designated Expert"
in parenthesis in the assignment policy name itself.  In contrast, Specification 
Required mentions Designated Expert only in its text.

-d

> > > I'll try to adjust this language to make it more clear; any
> suggestions
> > > would of course be welcome.
> >

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 17:24:13 -0400

> which lists the assignment policies and only one of them says "Designated
> Expert" in parenthesis in the assignment policy name itself.  In contrast,
> Specification Required mentions Designated Expert only in its text.

I've been confused by this one also in the past.  Changing the name
"Specification Required" to something like "Expert Review and Specification
Required" would help.  Most people who see Specification Required" on an
IANA registry aren't going to go check RFC 5226 to figure out what it really
means.  I realize that this is an issue with RFC 5226 that may be beyond the
scope of this draft.

Thanks,
--David

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Dan Wing
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 5:18 PM
> To: 'Jeffrey Hutzelman'
> Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-registry-custodian-
> 01.txt
>

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 21:23:44 -0400

So it means "Expert Reviewed Specification Required"...

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Black, David <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Expert"

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:07:37 -0400

> means.  I realize that this is an issue with RFC 5226 that may be beyond the

As it happens, I'm working on a revision to BCP 26:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis/

I've asked Mark to see how he'd like to blend his proposal into that
document.  I've also made a change that relates to Dan's comment:
------
4.1.5.  Policy: Expert Review

   (Sometimes also called "Designated Expert" in earlier editions of
   this document.)  Approval by a designated expert is required.
...
4.1.6.  Policy: Specification Required

   Values and their meanings must be documented in a permanent and
   readily available public specification, in sufficient detail so that
   interoperability between independent implementations is possible.
   When used, Specification Required also implies use of a Designated
   Expert (see Section 4.1.5)
------

I would rather not make the policy name as long as David's suggestion,
but perhaps rewording this way works?:
------
4.1.6.  Policy: Specification Required

   Values and their meanings must be reviewed by a Designated
   Expert (as in Section 4.1.5) and documented in a permanent and
   readily available public specification, in sufficient detail so that
   interoperability between independent implementations is possible.
------

Barry

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:44:26 -0700

> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 10:08 AM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: Dan Wing; Jeffrey Hutzelman; Working Group Chairs; Mark Nottingham
> >> The potential for confusion is
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1

Great.

>    interoperability between independent implementations is possible.

I like that improved wording.  But can you make 4.1.5 and 4.1.6
more parallel (4.1.5 says "Approval by a designated expert is required"
whereas 4.1.6 says "must be reviewed by a Designated Expert").  I
don't know understand the nuance between "approval" and "reviewed"
between those sections.

Thanks for section numbers on those policy names; that helps with
references.

-d

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:27:08 -0400

> don't know understand the nuance between "approval" and "reviewed"

Makes sense; OK.

> Thanks for section numbers on those policy names; that helps with

It was suggested by Julian Reschke, for exactly that reason.

b

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:03:39 -0400

Hi Barry,

> 4.1.6.  Policy: Specification Required

We're looking at different use cases and goals.  The new text that you suggest
for 5226bis looks fine, but my interest is in the policy name that shows up in
the public IANA registries.

The name "Specification Required" does not convey the fact that an expert review
is involved to those not wise in the ways of the IETF ... and I'd prefer to
have a policy name associated with the public registry that does convey that
fact, as the intended audience is unlikely to read 5226bis, IMHO.

Thanks,
--David

> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 1:08 PM
> To: Black, David
> Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-registry-custodian-
> 01.txt
>

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:28:45 -0400

> fact, as the intended audience is unlikely to read 5226bis, IMHO.

Ack.  And I agree with your last point.

There are two problems:

1. We have had people say in their documents, "Expert Review with
Specification Required", and IANA have misinterpreted that as "Expert
Review".  I worry about continuing that confusion.

2. I'm also concerned, given how long these terms have been in use (14
years and more than 4000 RFCs since RFC 2434), with changing the
well-known terms -- they are truly "well-known" in our community.  We
changed "IETF Consensus" to "IETF Review" when 5226 replaced 2434, and
I still see the former term showing up here and there.  I'd hate to
confuse all of us in the process of trying to make things clearer for
others.

There's also another factor:

3. The Expert Review part isn't really something that a registrant
needs to know about directly.  If a registrant sees "Specification
Required" and doesn't know anything more than that, she puts the
required specification together and sends the registration request to
IANA.  IANA sends it to the designated expert, who responds that the
specification is or isn't adequate, and so on, and as far as the
registrant is concerned this is just part of what happens.  Why does
the registrant need to understand the expert review process?

Can you help me resolve the first two problems, keeping the third
point in mind, such that the result addresses your concern?

Barry

---

From: "Black, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 18:10:31 -0400

Barry,

I think problem 1 is related to and reinforces my concern, as it indicates
that some draft authors also don't realize that Specification Required
implies expert review.

For problem 2, I certainly wouldn't want to invalidate the terms that
have been used in the past, so I wouldn't want to prohibit
"Specification Required [5226bis]".

OTOH, independent of whether the registrant sees the review, the expectation
that one will happen is a good one to set, and the effects of the review
will be seen if the initial reviewer response is not approval.

Would the availability of something like "Specification and Review
Required" as a synonym for "Specification Required" work?  With luck,
that's not easily confusable with Expert Review.

Thanks,
--David

> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 5:29 PM
> To: Black, David
> Cc: Working Group Chairs

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:27:20 -0400

> the registrant need to understand the expert review process?

So, "Specification Required" is both more and less stringent than
"Expert Review".  It is more stringent in that a (public) specification
is required, whereas an Expert Review policy may not require a public
specification at all, depending on the review criteria.  On the other
hand, it is also less stringent in that with Specification Required, it
is possible that there are no review criteria beyond that.

So, the scenario you describe makes sense _if_ there are no other review
criteria.  However, if there are, then the registrant needs to know
about the expert review process to exactly the same extent as for the
Expert Review policy.  Of course, that's still not much -- submitting a
request to IANA will get it into the expert's hands, but things will
work better if the registrant knows what they are getting into.

FWIW, my vote goes for keeping the existing names "Expert Review" and
"Specification Required".  It might be desirable for IANA to point out
in the registries when a Specification Required policy includes other
review criteria, so registrants know what to expect.  But making the
names long and complicated does not serve a useful purpose, IMHO.

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:31:54 -0500

> names long and complicated does not serve a useful purpose, IMHO.

+1; I was never confused by this, FWIW, because it's one of the first things that the description of SR says.

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/