W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > December 2011

Re: minutes: W3C/IETF liaison call 2011-11-29

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:26:17 +0000
Message-ID: <4EFC8699.8010304@ninebynine.org>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
CC: "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
Hi Larry,

Hmmm... I'm not sure about "summarizing" the Happiana discussion, as what 
follows surely does not reflect all opinions present.  But the current situation 
as I understand it is roughly thus, if the text is any help to you:

...

The happiana mailing list has hosted discussions of several possibilities for 
improving the value and effectiveness of parameter registries, but there has 
been no clear consensus for any substantial change, and some disagreement about 
the nature of the problem.  There does seem to be some agreement about the 
following:

* the value of registries is impaired if actual parameters in use are not 
registered.  There is a perception that the registration process is too complex 
or arcane, leading to lack of relevant registrations.  Some community members 
seem to prefer an open wiki for collecting information about parameters in use 
(though not necessarily those engaged in the mailing list discussions).

* It is felt my many that the separation of registries (permanent, provisional, 
historic, etc.) is unhelpful, and that a single registry for each parameter 
(with status information) would be more useful.

* One concrete proposal that has garnered support is to create a wiki-based FAQ 
for each registry to demystify the process for newcomers and/or, with the intent 
that the FAQ may be linked from the registry page.  A secondary effect of this 
may be to help more clearly identify the problem areas and propose and document 
workable solutions through a less formal process than a formal publication process.

...

FWIW, I'm currently in the process of fleshing out an initial draft FAQ for 
message header fields at 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/MessageHeaderRegistration

#g
--

On 27/12/2011 17:13, Larry Masinter wrote:
> I started to work on a  TAG document addressing MIME and the web, and wound up separating the stuff about
>
> registries in general (of which MIME, URI schemes, various HTTP registries)
> identifiers in general (i.e., comparing registry, URIs as protocol extension identifiers, URI-identified namespaces, vendor prefixes)
> evolution in general (main insight: consider language/protocol, implementation, and specification/standard evolution independently)
>
> Likely too ambitious, but it's been helping me think about issues.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/
>
> but
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2011/12/evolution/Registries.html is still a placeholder, but I'd like to summarize the Happiana discussions.
>
> Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 7:12 AM
> To: public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
> Subject: Re: minutes: W3C/IETF liaison call 2011-11-29
>
> On 22/12/2011 19:09, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>> * "happiana"
>>
>> Break-out session on registries at TPAC -- minutes unknown. (Proposed
>> by Debbie
>> Dahl.)
>>
>> Informal discussions at IETF 82, output expected in the next few
>> weeks.
>>
>> ACTION: Peter to ping discussants about producing writeups / practical proposals.
>>
>> Mark wonders if we need a document about how and why to choose various
>> registration poilcies when setting up a registry. Peter notes that
>> Barry Leiba has worked on
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-leiba-iana-policy-update  and that
>> Barry's work might get folded into the "bis" version of RFC 5226 in
>> coordination with Michelle Cotton from IANA.
>
> FWIW, and not to my knowledge part of the TPAC or IETF 82 discussions (I wasn't there), there's been some consensus about the possibility of augmenting IANA registries with FAQ wikis to help make the registration process for each registry easier to understand and follow.  I'm on the hook to prepare an initial FAQ for the message header registry.  Others may follow.
>
> #g
> --
>
>
Received on Thursday, 29 December 2011 23:37:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 December 2011 23:37:20 GMT