Subject: approval model for registrations (was: Re: Link housekeeping: PaceFieldingLinks and maintenance)

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:56:55 +0900

At 12:45 04/10/27, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:

[reordering a bit]

 >In practice, the two models are identical. The IESG person responsible 
for the experts in both cases usually lets the experts do what they want 
with little supervision. Either is fine for what we need.

I think we still are not understanding each other. There are two
clearly different models. The best way to see this is to look at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-media-type-reg-01.txt.
[I have copied the authors of this doc just in case we need help.]

This is the new proposal for registering media types which is
for the most part already used in practice. It uses both models.

The "IESG approval" model (see 5.2  IESG Approval) is used for media
types in the standards tree. It results in the media type actually being
on the IESG telechat, and an official approval notice being sent out from
the IETF secretariat to [email-masked]. (just saw two of them
today).

The "Reviewer" model (see 5.4  Media Types Reviewer) is used for all
other media types. The reviewer in this case isn't even appointed by
the IESG, but just by the Applications Area Director(s). A decision
by the reviewer may be appealed to the IESG, but that rarely if ever
happens. No approval notices get sent out to [email-masked].

As I said earlier, for values that would go into the 'rel' attribute
on atom:link, I think that requiring "IESG approval" is clearly
overkill.

Regards,    Martin.

 >At 8:38 AM +0900 10/27/04, Martin Duerst wrote:
 >>Hello Paul,
 >>
 >>At 00:06 04/10/27, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
 >>>
 >>>At 1:25 PM +0900 10/26/04, Martin Duerst wrote:
 >>>>- "New assignments must be approved by the IESG.": The most frequent
 >>>>    way registries that I know are updated is by having an expert reviewer.
 >>>>    Bothering the IESG with this is way too much of a hurdle.
 >>>
 >>>It is the IESG who assigns expert reviewers and approves their actions. 
We should let the IESG decide how they want to handle this without us 
telling them.
 >>
 >>It turns out that there seem to be two different models of (expert)
 >>reviewers.
 >>
 >>The one I refered to is where the RFC defines that there is a reviewer
 >>that has to give his/her okay before things get registered with IANA.
 >>This is the case for charsets (you should know, because you are the
 >>reviewer) and language tags (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt,
 >>Section 3), and media types in general (vnd,...). In these cases,
 >>the IESG doesn't get involved.
 >>
 >>The other model, the one you are referring to, is that the IESG
 >>assigns reviewers as part of their decision process. In that case,
 >>it's of course up to the IESG to handle things the way they want.
 >>
 >>However, what I was proposing is that we use the model used currently
 >>for charsets, language tags,..., which is considerably more lightweight
 >>and in my view more appropriate for the kind of registration we are
 >>dealing with.
 >