Subject: [salud] Thoughts about <provider> values

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 17:54:43 -0400

[as an author]

This is a collection of my thoughts regarding <provider>s.  This
message is to advance our discussion of how to solve the discuss item
regarding <provider> values.

All of the proposals regard the syntax definition of <provider> and
its interpretation.  The choices are:

    1. domain name

    2. domain name ( date )

    3. token
       [the token is defined in a new registry]

Every proposal involves creating an intellectual property right, the
right to create <private-name>s using that <provider>.  In every case,
this right carries a responsibility to manage the use of
<private-name>s using that <provider> according to the rules in the
draft.

Choice 1 attaches this right to owning the registration of the domain
name.  Choice 2 makes this right separable from the registration, and
so requires that we describe the right explicitly.  (People don't like
that.)  Choice 3 creates these rights by registration in a registry.

The IETF already uses registries for a number of "private"
identifiers, and as far as I know, the right to use a registry entry
is never clearly defined.  OTOH, we may have the only instance when a
registry entry is used as the base to create a series of identifiers.

If we can get choice 1 approved, I would favor that over choice 3.  It
wouldn't be difficult to edit the text to accommodate that change.
And since we wouldn't need to document the "right to use a <provider>
value" separately, we could eliminate the part of the text that
bothers people.

This would be a substantive change, and we'd have to ask the working
group.

Dale