Subject: [CDNi] AD review of draft-ietf-cdni-media-type

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 13:56:50 -0400

Hi, Kevin.

I have a few comments about the document.  They're minor, but we do
need to sort some of them out before I request last call.  It should
be quick, though.  Let's discuss points 1 and 4, at least, and any
others that you might disagree with.

1. The shepherd writeup says "This document requests the Proposed
Standard track. This is appropriate given it requests a media type
allocation and creation of a registry."  Actually, that's not so: it
would be perfectly acceptable for this to be Informational, and I
think that might be the right target status.  It will never be
necessary to consider progressing this from Proposed Standard to
Internet Standard.  So maybe we should just make it Informational to
start with.

2. You say this is a provisional registration, and I don't think you
mean that.  Provisional registrations are early registrations that are
done before documents are finished.  I think you want to change that
to "no".

3. In Section 2.2, you're vague about the valid characters.  Rather
than saying "visible (printing) characters", I think it would be
better to say what characters are valid, using the ASCII codepoint
ranges.  That way, it'll be unambiguous to IANA.  Consider leaving the
text as it is now, but adding ABNF, perhaps like this (check it and
make sure I got it right):

    ptype = 1*256(ptype-char)
    ptype-char = %x21 / %23-3A / %x3C / %x3E-7E
      ; Includes ALPHA, DIGIT, and other printables
      ; Excludes equal signs (=), double quotes ("), semicolons (;)

4. You use "Expert Review", but then require a specification.  Why
isn't it "Specification Required":

OLD
   Additions to the CDNI Payload Type namespace conform to the "Expert
   Review" policy as defined in [RFC5226].  The expert review will
   verify
NEW
   Additions to the CDNI Payload Type namespace conform to the
   "Specification Required" policy as defined in [RFC5226].  The
   designated expert will verify
END

...and then delete this sentence:

OLD
   The
   expert review will include review of a publicly available written
   specification (preferably an RFC, though an RFC is not required).
END

And a question here: Do you really want the designated expert to
review the request even when it comes from a Standards Track RFC,
which a working group is already reviewing and has consensus on?  (I'm
not suggesting that there's a right answer; I'm asking the question.)
If the answer is yes, it might be useful to explicitly say it, to
avoid questions later.  Maybe replace that deleted sentence instead
with this:

NEW
   The designated expert will review the specification even if it is
   a Standards Track RFC, to make sure it meets the criteria below.
END

5. I think RFCs 6770, 7159, and 7336 are informative references for
this document, not normative ones.

6. You have 2119 boilerplate and an RFC 2119 reference, but there are
no 2119 key words in the document.  You can (should) remove the
boilerplate and reference.

--
Barry

---

From: Kevin Ma J <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:12:59 +0000

Hi Barry,

  Thanks for the review!

  1. I'm fine with putting it back to Informational.  Wasn't sure since other Standards Track documents will be dependent upon it.

  2. I will change provisional to no.  Wasn't sure since the other Standards Track documents will be the ones actually defining the payload type registry entries

  3. I will add ABNF.

  4. I will change from Expert Review to Specification Required.

     I was expecting WG documents to also go through the Expert Review; it would probably just be a very fast expert review.  I will add text to make that explicit.

  5. I will move the references to informative.

  6. I will remove the 2119 boilerplate.

thanx!

--  Kevin J. Ma

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Barry Leiba
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 1:57 PM
> To: Kevin Ma J
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: AD review of draft-ietf-cdni-media-type
> 
> Hi, Kevin.
>

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:20:52 -0400

>   Thanks for the review!

You're welcome.

>   1. I'm fine with putting it back to Informational.  Wasn't sure since
> other Standards Track documents will be dependent upon it.

They'll depend on the registry being there and the media type being
registered, but neither of those required Standards Track.

>   2. I will change provisional to no.  Wasn't sure since the other
> Standards Track documents will be the ones actually defining the
> payload type registry entries

This doesn't have to do with the ptype registry, only with the
registration of the media type... and that's permanent, not
provisional.

>      I was expecting WG documents to also go through the Expert Review;
> it would probably just be a very fast expert review.  I will add text to make
> that explicit.

Great; thanks.  It's just that (1) working groups often are too strict
about registration policies, and (2) the IESG has recently been
questioning whether it's appropriate for designated experts to block
things that have IETF consensus.  So I wanted to ask.  With
explanation, I think it's fine to remain on this path.

As soon as you post a new revision, I'll request last call.

Barry