Subject: [Ecrit] Service Classification

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:36:19 +0300

Hi all, 

I wanted to figure out how to proceed with the following two documents: 
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-forte-ecrit-service-classification-00.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sun-ecrit-shelter-service-00.txt

The IANA consideration section of RFC 5031
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5031.txt says: 
"
   Services and sub-services are identified by labels managed by IANA,
   according to the processes outlined in [RFC2434] in a new registry
   called "Service URN Labels".  Thus, creating a new service requires
   IANA action.  The policy for adding top-level service labels is
   'Standards Action'.  (This document defines the top-level services
   'sos' and 'counseling'.)  The policy for assigning labels to sub-
   services may differ for each top-level service designation and MUST
   be defined by the document describing the top-level service.
"

Unfortunately, both documents define top-level services. As such, we
would have to pick them up as WG item in order to advance them. 
I don't like that approach too much. 

So, I would like to hear from the authors on how they think these type
of documents should be progressed through the IETF. 

Ciao
Hannes
_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:40:18 -0400

I don't have a good answer. Based on the subject matter, the best  
approach would be to declare both to be experimental. I don't know if  
there's an override on the 'standards-action' part that doesn't  
require writing an rfc5031bis document. As we have seen from the SIP P- 
header experience, creating some kind of x- registry is  
counterproductive.

Any suggestions?

Henning

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:36:04 +0200

I do see two ways forward: 

A) Issue a RFC 5031bis to change the policy

B) Submit the two drafts as Standards Track documents. 

I prefer (A) and submit the drafts as experimental with expert review
from ECRIT. 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 30 October, 2008 06:40
>To: Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)
>Cc: ECRIT
>Subject: Re: [Ecrit] Service Classification
>
>I don't have a good answer. Based on the subject matter, the 
>best approach would be to declare both to be experimental. I 
>don't know if there's an override on the 'standards-action' 
>part that doesn't require writing an rfc5031bis document. As 
>we have seen from the SIP P- header experience, creating some 
>kind of x- registry is counterproductive.
>
>Any suggestions?
>
>Henning
>
>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-forte-ecrit-service-classification-00.t
>> xt http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sun-ecrit-shelter-service-00.txt
>>

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:19:10 -0400

(A) is fine with me. This might make for the shortest draft ever:

The sentence "The policy for adding top-level service labels is  
Standards Action" is replaced by "The policy for adding top-level  
service labels is IETF Consensus".

Henning