Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #50: Change registry format to XML (Apps #3)

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 15:06:35 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>; "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 5:23 AM
> Subject: Additional issues with 4646bis raised by an Apps Review Team review
...
> 3). Registry format: IANA is switching its registries to XML. The WG
> should consider switching the format. Alternatively 4646bis should be
> updated to specify reasons for keeping the existing format.
...

As co-chair:

The working group considered and extensively discussed this alternative
in the summer of 2006, reaching a peak in September 2006 when IANA
announced its intent to use XML.  There was no clear consensus for change.
It had previously been discussed during the work on RFC 4646, and in that
case, too, failed to gain a critical mass of support.

Since this would be a significant change to the specification and would
directly impact tools which process the registry, I'd only be willing to
entertain such a change if there were overwhelming support from the WG.

As a technical contributor:

As I've said before, I think XML makes sense.  However, I do not think the
extra delay required to change the specification would be worthwhile, and
consequently would only go along with such a change if there were strong
support from the implementation community.

Randy

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 10:52:28 +0900

Also as co-chair:

It may also help to look at our charter for this point. The charter, at
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html, says:

The working group will clarify text where necessary. It may also
make adjustments to the registration process and the form of the
registry if this is deemed appropriate based on ongoing registration
and operational experience. These adjustments and clarifications
are not expected to delay the progress of the work.

First, please note the word "adjustments" for "the form of the 
registry". It may be possible to see a change to XML as an "adjustment", 
but it would be a rather big one. Second, please note the words "based 
on ongoing registration and operational experience". I have not heard 
about any registration or operational experience that would suggest that 
we need to switch to XML. Even if we were at the start of our WG work 
(rather than close to the end), these two points would cast strong 
doubts on whether an change to XML would even be within our charter.

Third, please note the words "are not expected to delay the progress of 
the work". It is unclear whether a transition to XML, in the event it 
would it have been appropriate under the above circumstances, could have 
been done without delaying the WG work. However, it is very clear that 
if the WG were instructed to change to an XML format at this point in 
time, this would significantly delay our work, which would be against 
our charter.

Overall, I think it's a great idea that IANA is working towards using 
XML. For many registries which are currently maintained just in an 
ad-hoc, ill-defined format, this could potentially be a great 
improvement. However, it would be strange if the IETF took a willingness 
of IANA to move to XML as an order to IETF WGs to change their formats 
to XML. This would reflect extremely badly on the autonomy of the IETF 
and its ability to make decisions in the best technical interest of the 
relevant communities.

Regards,    Martin.

On 2009/05/25 7:06, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> Hi -
>
>> From: "Alexey Melnikov"<[email-masked]>
>> To: "LTRU Working Group"<[email-masked]>
>> Cc: "Martin J. Dürst"<[email-masked]>; "Randy Presuhn"<[email-masked]>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[email-masked]