Subject: [clue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-clue-data-model-schema-16.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2016 12:06:29 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the ControLling mUltiple streams for tElepresence of the IETF.

        Title           : An XML Schema for the CLUE data model
        Authors         : Roberta Presta
                          Simon Pietro Romano
	Filename        : draft-ietf-clue-data-model-schema-16.txt
	Pages           : 77
	Date            : 2016-06-03

Abstract:
   This document provides an XML schema file for the definition of CLUE
   data model types.  The term "CLUE" stands for "ControLling mUltiple
   streams for tElepresence" and is the name of the IETF working group
   in which this document, as well as other companion documents, has
   been developed.  The document defines a coherent structure for
   information associated with the description of a telepresence
   scenario.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-clue-data-model-schema/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-clue-data-model-schema-16

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-clue-data-model-schema-16

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Simon Pietro Romano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 21:12:31 +0200

Hello everybody,

version -16 of the data model draft is out. Here is a short summary of the diff with the previous version of the document:

"Applied modifications as per the following reviews: (i) Alexey Melnikov's discuss and comments (abstract amendments, typo corrections, insertion of references, etc.); (ii) Kathleen Moriarty's discuss and comments (amendments to the Security Considerations section); (iii) Stefan Winter's OPS-DIR review (use of enumerated types in the schema).”

Cheers,

Simon & Roberta

> On 03/giu/2016, at 21:06, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> clue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
> 

                     					       _\\|//_
                           				      ( O-O )
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o00~~(_)~~00o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    				Simon Pietro Romano
             				 Universita' di Napoli Federico II
                		     Computer Engineering Department 
	             Phone: +39 081 7683823 -- Fax: +39 081 7683816
                                           e-mail: [email-masked]

		    <<Molti mi dicono che lo scoraggiamento è l'alibi degli 
		    idioti. Ci rifletto un istante; e mi scoraggio>>. Magritte.
               			                     oooO
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(   )~~~ Oooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
					                 \ (            (   )
			                                  \_)          ) /
                                                                       (_/

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 15:31:53 -0400

This looks good, except for one thing:

While I like the new IANA registries, I'm a little concerned about the 
criteria for adding new values. As written it requires only Expert 
Review. That means that when new new values are approved there will be 
only the registry entry to describe what they are. There won't be 
anything to define the semantics of the new entries.

I'm inclined to think we should require a document, and for the registry 
to reference it. IIRC that implies expert review as well.

Also, I guess we probably need to include templates for the registries, 
and some info for IANA to populate them with the initial values.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Christian Groves <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:08:52 +1000

I agree RFC5226 talks about that documentation and review criteria 
should be provided when setting up the registry.

Regards, Christian

On 4/06/2016 5:31 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> I'm inclined to think we should require a document, and for the 
> registry to reference it. IIRC that implies expert review as well.
>
> Also, I guess we probably need to include templates for the 
> registries, and some info for IANA to populate them with the initial 
> values.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Paul
>
>> version -16 of the data model draft is out. Here is a short summary 
>> of the diff with the previous version of the document:
>>
>> "Applied modifications as per the following reviews: (i) Alexey 
>> Melnikov's discuss and comments (abstract amendments, typo 
>> corrections, insertion of references, etc.); (ii) Kathleen Moriarty's 
>> discuss and comments (amendments to the Security Considerations 
>> section); (iii) Stefan Winter's OPS-DIR review (use of enumerated 
>> types in the schema).”
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Simon & Roberta
>>

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 11:36:05 -0700

> On Jun 6, 2016, at 7:08 PM, Christian Groves <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I agree RFC5226 talks about that documentation and review criteria should be provided when setting up the registry.

Yep. I would recommend reading through https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-16 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-16> to see the most up-to-date guidance on what needs to be included when creating a new registry. (I know it’s a draft but the content needed for this purpose is stable enough.)

Alissa

>> While I like the new IANA registries, I'm a little concerned about the criteria for adding new values. As written it requires only Expert Review. That means that when new new values are approved there will be only the registry entry to describe what they are. There won't be anything to define the semantics of the new entries.
>> 
>> I'm inclined to think we should require a document, and for the registry to reference it. IIRC that implies expert review as well.
>> 
>> Also, I guess we probably need to include templates for the registries, and some info for IANA to populate them with the initial values.
>> 
>>    Thanks,
>>    Paul
>>

---

From: Simon Pietro Romano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 20:54:42 +0200

Ok. We'll do that.

Thanks,

Simon 

Il 08 Giugno 2016 20:36:05 CEST, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> ha scritto:
>Yep. I would recommend reading through
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-16
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-16> to see
>the most up-to-date guidance on what needs to be included when creating
>a new registry. (I know it’s a draft but the content needed for this
>purpose is stable enough.)
>
>Alissa
>
>> 
>> Regards, Christian
>> 
>> 
>>> While I like the new IANA registries, I'm a little concerned about
>the criteria for adding new values. As written it requires only Expert
>Melnikov's discuss and comments (abstract amendments, typo corrections,
>insertion of references, etc.); (ii) Kathleen Moriarty's discuss and
>comments (amendments to the Security Considerations section); (iii)
>Stefan Winter's OPS-DIR review (use of enumerated types in the
>schema).”
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> Simon & Roberta
>>>> 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>