Subject: Re: [salud] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 14:17:08 -0400

[NOTE: this message is to the WG, not back to Barry.]

See question at end

On 5/13/14 10:49 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Hi, Paul, and thanks for the response.
>
>>> -- Sections 9.1, 9.2, 10.1 --
>>> I worry that we're painting ourselves into an undesirable corner here by
>>> using Standards Action for the registration policies.  Is it truly
>>> inappropriate to use Specification Required or Expert Review, and to let
>>> a designated expert that the IESG appoints stand in for (1) overall IETF
>>> review and (2) the demand that the registration be done in a Standards
>>> Track RFC?
>>>
>>> We have too many cases when we've later regretted using Standards Action
>>> or IETF Review (the registration of a URN NID being one of them; we're in
>>> the pocess of changing that policy in the urnbis working group).  And
>>> especially if you want other standards outside the IETF to use these,
>>> requiring them to get an IETF Standards Track RFC or to use private names
>>> doesn't seem reasonable.
>>>
>>> Can you please explain the reason for holding to Standards Action, and
>>> the harm that would be caused by using some form of expert review
>>> instead?
>>
>> I often find it difficult to choose a policy.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> IMO the policies that are more "automatic" require more clarity about
>> criteria for what is a valid entry and what is not. In particular I find it
>> problematic to leave the decision to a designated expert without clear
>> guidance to the expert. (I serve as an expert on a registry where that
>> guidance is insufficient, and I am uncomfortable with that.)
>
> Absolutely so, which is why there should be clear guidance to the expert.
>
> But that's really no different to what we have with Standards Action:
> if we can't give guidance to the expert, then we can't give guidance
> to the IETF community as a whole, and then it's just a crap-shoot when
> someone needs to add a new entry and writes an I-D and submits it.
>
> We're also asking ADs to AD-sponsor drafts that are solely for the
> purpose of registering one of these things.  Let me tell you how
> annoying that is with URN NIDs, and for no good purpose.  The NID
> registration requests are already reviewed on a specific mailing list,
> and assigning a designated expert to make sure the comments have been
> addressed and to approve the registration would be a big help and
> would make the whole process more reasonable.  I think the same would
> be true here.
>
> But, yes, absolutely: clear guidance to the expert.
>
>> The use of Specification Required is "the easy way out", in that we can then
>> defer the decision about what is appropriate until later. Maybe by then we
>> will have more experience with use of this. We aren't really expecting to
>> see new public categories soon.
>
> Are you saying that we don't *know* what guidance to give to the
> expert?  Then how would we expect an individually submitted Standards
> Track draft to get any reasonable processing for this?

What I am tempted to reply is:

===

Yep, that is what I'm saying.

I would hope that these would be run through a WG - probably DISPATCH 
once SALUD closes. And there the pros/cons would be debated.

Else it would presumably be AD-sponsored, and the AD would be the 
sounding board.

We could spend more time trying to define guidelines for an expert. But 
it is not so each. Each category is a new dimension in a 
multidimensional space, with a unique domain of values. We want the 
dimensions to be independent, so that there aren't multiple ways to 
express the same thing. And there are better and worse ways to define 
things, and some things that make no sense at all. It is hard to 
describe "common sense" here.

===

But that might not be a wise thing to answer to the iesg.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 15:48:55 -0400

> From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>

> But that might not be a wise thing to answer to the iesg.

Here are are some additions to what you've said.

    Yep, that is what I'm saying.  The problem is that it's easier to
    solve a specific instance of a problem (in this case, what to do with
    a URN extension proposal) than it is to provide an algorithm (in
    effect) for solving all possible future instances of the problem.

    We could spend more time trying to define guidelines for an
    expert. But it is not so easy to do that. Each category is a new
    dimension in a multidimensional space, with a unique domain of
    values. We want the dimensions to be independent, so that there aren't
    multiple ways to express the same thing. And there are better and
    worse ways to define things, and some things that make no sense at
    all.  In addition, we want the alert-info URN system to be
    semantically compatible with existing practices in the rest of the
    telecom universe to maximize interoperability.  It is hard to describe
    "common sense" here, and there is a risk that some important
    requirement would not be noticed until a proposal was submitted which
    violates the requirement.

I tried to start a list of directions to an expert.  So far, I've got:

- A new alert-category should be independent of existing
  alert-categories, i.e., that each alert-identifier of the new
  alert-category can be meaningfully combined with any
  alert-identifiers of all existing alert-categories.

- A new alert-category should not specify information that can already
  be specified by existing alert-categories.

- A new alert-category should not reduce compatibility with existing
  practices in the telecommunications industry.

Though now that I think of it, the rules are in (or should be in)
sections 10.1 and 10.2, which define the restrictions on creating
private extensions.  We may have already done this work.  Or maybe,
finishing this work may be needed to make 10.1 and 10.2 correct.

Dale

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:36:37 -0400

Thanks Dale. Your additions below are good.

The real question is: do we want to justify keeping standards action, or 
do we want to relax to something that can be approved by an expert and 
define the rules for the expert?

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 5/14/14 3:48 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> salud mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud
>