Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Registration of vnc: URI scheme - request for comments

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 21:49:23 +0100

Graham Klyne wrote:
> But the registration document is being submitted though the RFC ISE
> stream, which does not receive the same level of IETF review as IETF
> stream publication, and in the past registrations from ISE documents
> have been restricted to "provisional" status.  I understand publication
> via ISE stream was at the suggestion of an IETF application area
> director (I don't know who).

(Beyond the permanent /vnc/ scheme registration itself, which I
certainly support, but don't have a really strong opinion on:)

I think this is symptomatic of a more widespread problem we are having:
only the extremes of ISE stream and IETF consensus seem to be available
to documents that support some forms of registration.

It is the nature of some registrations that they only address a
comparatively narrow set of users, so running the whole IETF consensus
machine is not always appropriate.  Still, where some review was
achieved, it would be useful to have a weaker form of "this was
reviewed" status.

I don't have a specific proposal just yet.  For now, I wanted to
highlight this isn't an isolated instance.

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 20:36:47 +0000

In my role as URI scheme registration designated reviewer, I'm reviewing a 
request for permanent registration of the 'vnc:' URI scheme, per 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-warden-appsawg-vnc-scheme-07#appendix-A

The scheme registration document appears to be thorough, and it has received 
some review on the [email-masked] mailing list with substantially positive 
responses, and appears (from a brief Google search) to be quite widely 
implemented.

But the registration document is being submitted though the RFC ISE stream, 
which does not receive the same level of IETF review as IETF stream publication, 
and in the past registrations from ISE documents have been restricted to 
"provisional" status.  I understand publication via ISE stream was at the 
suggestion of an IETF application area director (I don't know who).

Taking all the above into account, I am minded to approve permanent registration 
in this case (which has the effect of conferring something approaching 
"standard" status).

Are there any concerns anyone would raise about my proposed response?

If I hear no objections over the next week or so, I propose to recommend 
permanent registration as requested.

#g
--

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 11:49:21 -0500

Hi, Graham.

> which does not receive the same level of IETF review as IETF stream
> publication, and in the past registrations from ISE documents have been
> restricted to "provisional" status.  I understand publication via ISE stream
> was at the suggestion of an IETF application area director (I don't know
> who).

That'd be me, after consulting with Cullen and Robert, who were the
ones who AD-sponsored RFC 6143.

The policy for registering permanent URI schemes is Expert Review, and
the designated expert has quite a bit of room for judgment.  RFC 7595
says these:

   'Permanent' status is appropriate for, but not limited to, use in
   standards.

...and...

   The registration procedure is intended to be very lightweight for
   noncontentious registrations.  For the most part, we expect the good
   sense of submitters and reviewers, guided by these procedures, to
   achieve an acceptable and useful consensus for the community.

...and...

   The role of the Designated Expert in the procedure for 'permanent'
   registrations described here is to ensure that the normal open review
   process has been properly followed and to raise possible concerns
   about wider implications of proposals for the use and deployment

...and that the requester should...

    Prepare a scheme registration request using the template
    specified in Section 7.4.  The scheme registration request can be
    contained in an Internet-Draft, submitted alone, or as part of
    some other permanently available, stable, protocol specification.

No specification is formally required at all, beyond the registration
template ("submitted alone"), and an Independent Stream RFC certainly
qualifies as a permanently available, stable specification.

I know that Graham knows this; I'm clarifying for others who may not
be as familiar with the registration requirements.

So the fact that we've usually used the IETF Stream for permanent URI
scheme registrations doesn't mean that the Independent Stream is in
any way inappropriate, and Graham is doing the right thing in making
sure that there's been enough open review of this to satisfy him.  And
it sounds like he's satisfied:

> Taking all the above into account, I am minded to approve permanent
> registration in this case (which has the effect of conferring something
> approaching "standard" status).
>

Great!  Thanks, as always, Graham, for your excellent review work on
this.  I really appreciate that you continue to be willing and able to
serve as a URI Schemes expert.

Barry