W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > July 2012

Re: [iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:29:03 +0900
Message-ID: <50069DFF.8060607@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
CC: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, iri issue tracker <trac+iri@gamay.tools.ietf.org>, "masinter@adobe.com" <masinter@adobe.com>, "public-iri@w3.org" <public-iri@w3.org>
I agree with mandatory for permanent and optional for provisional. But 
it's more that I think this makes sense in general (and the timeouts are 
already set so that works out), rather than that we have to do it that 
way to make sure it fits the timeouts (which we could change if we wanted).

I also think that in terms of wording, we shouldn't use the term 
"mandatory". Just make a list of what has to happen for registration, 
and put list review in there, saying "(optional for provisional 
registrations)".

Regards,   Martin.

On 2012/07/13 3:04, Dave Thaler wrote:
> With the review, the process is currently specified to be 6 weeks for
> a registration (allow up to 4 weeks for list discussion at least for
> Permanent [Provisional is unspecified], then
> the IANA/designated expert has a 2-week timeout) assuming the
> requester and IANA both do their steps without noticeable delay.
>
> That's a long time for someone who today simply doesn't follow the
> process and squats on a value.   So if we want to discourage that behavior
> we have to make sure it's lightweight.
>
> I'd recommend that mailing list review is mandatory for Permanent
> and optional for Provisional registrations.
>
> Rationale...
>
> Regarding Larry's statement
>>>    I think we should just go with Expert Review, since Expert Review allows
>>>    the expert to ask for a mailing list review if there are any questions.
>
> Keep in mind there's the rule that:
>>    6.  Unless Expert Review has explicitly rejected the registration
>>        request within two weeks, IANA should automatically add the
>>        registration in the 'provisional' registry.
>
> So it's true that the expert can ask for a mailing list review, but unless
> the expert explicitly rejects it within two weeks, a provisional registration
> has to be granted.  So the mailing list review would have to be less
> than two weeks.   That's not unreasonable give that the mailing list
> review text says:
>> Four weeks is reasonable for a permanent registration requests.
> But has no text about what's reasonable for provisional requests.
> So if we agree that<2 weeks is reasonable for provisional, then
> it can be optional and triggered by the expert as needed as Larry suggests.
> But unless you change the timeouts, it has to be mandatory for
> Permanent since you can't fit 4 weeks of review into a 2 week timeout.
>
> -Dave
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 5:38 AM
>> To: Ted Hardie
>> Cc: iri issue tracker; masinter@adobe.com; public-iri@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: [iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?
>>
>> I also very much think that the mailing list review is helpful, just in the way
>> Ted has described it below. There are often various issues that the submitters
>> don't feel very sure about in the first place.
>>
>> I also agree with Ted that we should be careful not to give the impression that
>> every single comment on the mailing list has to lead to an edit. However, I
>> think that the current language, i.e.
>>
>> "Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
>> registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines given in this
>> document."
>>
>> isn't too bad. After all, if we can't tell people to follow this document, then it
>> wouldn't be worth working on it :-).
>>
>> Regards,   Martin.
>>
>> On 2012/06/07 17:12, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>> I disagree with Larry on this, but not terribly strongly.  It's my
>>> impression that the mailing list review is good for the overall
>>> process, as it helps folks see their particular need in a larger
>>> community context.  It's a bit of extra hoop-jumping, but I think the
>>> proposals that go through that review and get to the designated expert
>>> are the better for it.
>>>
>>> What's not clear, though, is how the mailing list traffic is then
>>> interpreted.  This part of the instructions:
>>>
>>> "Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
>>> registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines given
>>> in this document."
>>>
>>> makes it seems like the document author must make revisions, where it
>>> is perfectly reasonable in some cases for them to consider the
>>> feedback, then just ship it to the Expert Reviewer.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we can make it mandatory, but change that stage to "After
>>> considering the mailing list commentary, the submitter may wish to
>>> update the document prior to sending to the Expert Reviewer  for a
>>> decision."  Would that work?
>>>
>>> Ted
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:29 AM, iri issue tracker
>>> <trac+iri@trac.tools.ietf.org>   wrote:
>>>> #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Comment (by masinter@…):
>>>>
>>>>    I think we should just go with Expert Review, since Expert Review allows
>>>>    the expert to ask for a mailing list review if there are any questions.
>>>>    This simplifies the process.
>>>>
>>>>    DELETE
>>>>
>>>>      3.  Send a copy of the template or a pointer to the containing
>>>>          document (with specific reference to the section with the
>>>>          template) to the mailing list uri-review@ietf.org, requesting
>>>>          review.  In addition, request review on other relevant mailing
>>>>          lists as appropriate.  For example, general discussion of URI/IRI
>>>>          syntactical issues could be discussed on uri@w3.org; schemes for
>>>>          a network protocol could be discussed on a mailing list for that
>>>>          protocol.  Allow a reasonable time for discussion and comments.
>>>>          Four weeks is reasonable for a permanent registration requests.
>>>>      4.  Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
>>>>          registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines
>>>>          given in this document.
>>>>
>>>>    and
>>>>
>>>>    OLD
>>>>      5.  Submit the (possibly updated) registration template (or pointer
>>>>          to document containing it) to IANA at iana@iana.org, specifying
>>>>          whether 'permanent' or 'provisional' registration is requested.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    NEW
>>>>
>>>>      3. Submit the registration template (or pointer
>>>>         to the document containing it) to IANA at iana@iana.org, specifying
>>>>         the status of registration requested ('permanent', 'provisional',
>>>>    ...).
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --------------------------------+------------------
>>>>    Reporter:  stpeter@…           |       Owner:
>>>>       Type:  defect              |      Status:  new
>>>>    Priority:  major               |   Milestone:
>>>> Component:  4395bis             |     Version:
>>>>    Severity:  Active WG Document  |  Resolution:
>>>>    Keywords:                      |
>>>> --------------------------------+------------------
>>>>
>>>> Ticket
>>>> URL:<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/127#comment:1>
>>>> iri<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2012 11:29:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 July 2012 11:29:45 GMT