Subject: [apps-discuss] [IANA #812412] Expert Review - draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-04

From: "Pearl Liang via RT" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:58:48 +0000

Dear Authors,

Upon review, Graham Klyne has approved the requested new URI scheme and raised
some comments and question:

...

I'm also taking this opportunity to review the current version and make some 
final comments. These are pretty much all editorial, and I'm assuming they 
could be addressed (or not) in any AUTH48 period without requiring further 
public review.

Section 3.

"For IETF Standards-Track documents, Permanent registration status is REQUIRED." 
Reading this now, I find the drafting here is potentially confusing. Suggest:

"For URI schemes defined or normatively referenced by IETF Standards-Track 
documents, Permanent registration status is REQUIRED."

Section 3.3

"Schemes that are not intended to be used as locators SHOULD describe how the 
resource identified can be determined or accessed by software that obtains a URI 
of that scheme."

This doesn't seem quite right to me. Schemes that are not intended to be used 
as locators aren't generally expected to be accessed by software (though they 
may be in particular circumstances).

I think then point that needs to be made here is that there should be some 
defined structure of naming authority for the scheme, which is not necessarily 
interpretable by software. E.g., something like:

"Schemes that are not intended to be used as locators SHOULD describe how the 
resource identified can be determined or accessed by an agent that obtains a URI 
of that scheme."

Section 7.2:

" 8. Once Expert Review approves registration for a given status, IANA
adds the registration to the registry."

I note that the scheme has already been added to the registry at prior step 3.

Suggest:

" 8. Once Expert Review approves registration for a given status, IANA
updates the registration (per step 3) to indicate the approved status. "

Section 8:

I was somewhat thrown by the heading of section 8.1.

"8.1. "Example" Scheme Registration Request"

I think the intent would be clearer if the section title were given as:

"8.1. "Example" Scheme Registration Template"

...

- Regarding the Pending Review Status:

Section 7.2, a step 3 said:

3. Otherwise, IANA enters the registration request in the IANA
registry, with status marked as "Pending Review" and the
remainder of this section applies.

Question: Shall IANA remove the "Pending Review" URI scheme from the registry
if a new 'requested' permanent URI scheme is not being accepted after DE 
reviewed (step 4/5)?  Or it is okay to keep the Pending Review entry in the such status 
as long as it is under "additional review or discussion"?

The scheme may not be approved for its requested status. If not accepted, I 
imagine would would revert to "provisional" status (which does not require 
approval if it meets the minimal criteria set out). But I agree that this 
should probably be clarified.

......

We (IANA) need to know how we should manage the "Pending Review" URI scheme
listed in the registry if any.  

Note: The action(s) requested in this document will not be completed until 
the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. 

Thanks,
~pl

Pearl Liang
ICANN

---

From: "Pearl Liang via RT" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:58:48 +0000

Dear Authors,

...

Section 3.

Section 3.3

Section 7.2:

Suggest:

Section 8:

...

......

Thanks,
~pl

Pearl Liang
ICANN

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:59:13 +0000

> documents, Permanent registration status is REQUIRED."
I don't think the addition of "or normatively referenced" is correct. 
This seems to be a rather high bar. This would mean that certain URI 
types can't be normatively referenced until their status is upgraded to 
permanent.

I don't have objections to the rest of the suggestions.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:59:13 +0000

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:25:40 -0400

> I don't think the addition of "or normatively referenced" is correct. This
> seems to be a rather high bar. This would mean that certain URI types can't
> be normatively referenced until their status is upgraded to permanent.

On the other hand, without some change like that, one can simply pull
a URI scheme definition out of a Standards Track document, post it on
a web site, get a provisional registration for it, and use it in the
Standards Track document... making this requirement fairly pointless.

What's the real intent of this requirement?  If it's that
standards-track protocols have to use "permanent" URI schemes, not
"provisional" ones, then Graham's proposal is right, or almost right.

It's possible that what we really need is to say what we intend, very
clearly and in plain English (without trying to put MUSTs and SHOULDs
in exactly the right places), and then depend upon the designated
experts and the IESG to do the right thing, given those plain-English
instructions.

Barry

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:25:40 -0400

Barry

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:28:37 -0400

--On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:25 -0400 Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> On the other hand, without some change like that, one can
> simply pull a URI scheme definition out of a Standards Track
> document, post it on a web site, get a provisional
> registration for it, and use it in the Standards Track
> document... making this requirement fairly pointless.

And, coming back to my basic concern about the interaction
between registrations with Expert Review and IETF Standards:  If
the Standards Track is going to be meaningful, there must be
meaningful IETF consensus and change control over the
specification.   If, whether through malice or accident (I'm
pleased that the latter appears to be far more prevalent), we
create a race condition in which a small-group review by
particularly interested parties eliminates a meaningful
opportunity for IETF community review (and potential changes) of
something that is a substantial and normative element of a
standards track spec, the standards process and its credibility
are undermined.

Now, in theory, the right thing could be accomplished by having
a "Provisional" registration that has the explicit property that
the IETF can change up through and including Last Call and then
move it to "Permanent".  I don't think that would work in
practice but I continue to be skeptical about Provisional
registrations generally once the scheme is put into anything
resembling general use.

>...
> It's possible that what we really need is to say what we
> intend, very clearly and in plain English (without trying to
> put MUSTs and SHOULDs in exactly the right places), and then
> depend upon the designated experts and the IESG to do the
> right thing, given those plain-English instructions.

I'm not sure that is sufficient.   Examples with, e.g., DNS
RRTYPEs in which registrations have occurred after Expert Review
and then people have come forward to standardize the RRTYPE and
said, approximately, "the IETF cannot alter the definition of
that RRTYPE because it is already legitimately registered and in
use" suggest that it is not.

    john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:28:37 -0400

john

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 17:05:04 +0000

> documents, Permanent registration status is REQUIRED."

I don’t think we want to establish any new rules for normative references.
Qhen evaluating the stability of normative references to URI schemes, the 

stability of the document establishing the scheme, and the scheme’s change
controller, should be taken into consideration.

Larry
—
http://larry.masinter.net

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 17:05:04 +0000

Larry
—

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:14:17 -0400

--On Thursday, March 19, 2015 17:05 +0000 Larry Masinter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> I don't think we want to establish any new rules for
> normative references. Qhen evaluating the stability of
> normative references to URI schemes, the 
> stability of the document establishing the scheme, and the
> scheme's change controller, should be taken into
> consideration.

Larry, the RFC Editor already has rules requiring stability for
normative references.   If, as I believe to be the case,
non-Permanent URI registrations are inherently not stable
(although some may be less stable than others), then the
suggested text is just a case-specific restatement of existing
rules.  In addition, stating it this way removes the issue from
a requirement that the RFC Editor evaluate the stability of the
registrations and therefore the reference.  That seems desirable
to me.  

If you disagree and think that decision should really be in the
hands of the RFC Editor (and, hence, bluntly, assorted secret
dealings between RFC Editor staff and authors, ADs, etc.) rather
than this spec, an Expert Reviewer, or some open process, please
explain why.

best,
    john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 13:14:17 -0400

best,
    john

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:28:10 +0000

> "provisional" ones, then Graham's proposal is right, or almost right.

My intent in making that suggestion was that schemes referenced by standards 
should have been subjected (as John also says) to a corresponding level of review.

It's arguable that my suggestion is unnecessary, as a document that has been 
reviewed for standards-track publication SHOULD (?) have had its normative 
references checked.

But consider this scenario:  A W3C REC (their name for full standard) spec 
defines and provisionally registers a URI scheme (shouldn't happen, but we can't 
prohibit that).  An IETF standards-track spec normatively references that spec - 
I think that's perfectly allowable.  Now we have a standard track RFC 
referencing a URI that has never been checked by DE review (under the proposed 
new regime).

My proposal was intended to ensure, in somewhat "belt and braces" style, that 
the referenced URI scheme would at least get subjected to DE review.

In short, I think the bar SHOULD be (relatively) high for something referenced 
by a standards track document.

#g
--

> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:28:10 +0000

#g
--

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:30:50 +0000

> standards track spec, the standards process and its credibility

One thing I try to do when a URI scheme is submitted for permanent registration 
is check that it has been subjected to appropriate community review, comparable 
with standards track review.  If the registration is requested in a  document 
approved for standards track, I pretty much assume that the review has been 
adequate.  (If I spot any problems as part of my review, I tend to offer them as 
last-call type comments, not as part of my decision.)

I think this at least partially addresses the concern of using registration as 
an end runaround of the standards process.  (E.g., I have in the past 
recommended refusal of a permanent registration request contained in an ISE RFC 
publication for this reason, because I couldn't confirm the level of review.)

> move it to "Permanent".

I'm not sure what this adds that isn't already covered.

> ... I don't think that would work in

Well, the web is a messy place.  We can try to mandate perfection, but in the 
end people do stuff that bends the rules, whatever we say.  The point of 
provisional registration is that it at least allows such cases to be documented 
and discoverable, and making provisional simpler (as the current draft aims to 
do) is intended to improve the prevalence of such documentation.

If a provisional scheme does come into widespread use, the community can then 
decide to make the registration permanent (even if it comes with a health 
warning), in recognition of a (possibly sub-optimal) reality.

> I'm not sure that is sufficient.  [...]

I think I agree.  As DE, I try to refer any negative decisions to clearly stated 
requirements in the registration procedure, as this helps to ensure consistency 
and avoid a sense of capriciousness in the decisions.

Cases which are not referable to clear requirements in this way are much 
trickier to negotiate with authors.

#g
--

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:30:50 +0000

#g
--

---

From: Jonathan Ballard <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 08:28:16 -0700

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Graham Klyne <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think I agree.  [...]

That intention matches those that write plain English sentences that are
easily readable, secular, and put into perfect past tense. That technical
guild is not taught. It is acquired by trade and experience. It clearly
divided standardization processes between unified facts and predicate
proposals.

Writing against time, in that mode, requires more work than any apparent
appreciation level of such guild.

Thanks.

---

From: Jonathan Ballard <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 08:28:16 -0700

Thanks.