W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2009

draft-nottingham-site-meta: registration too slow, opaque

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:38:25 -0500
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <1256229505.4607.1513.camel@pav.lan>
Sorry I didn't review and comment when the draft first
became available...

Regarding:

"Before a period of 30 days has passed, the Designated
   Expert will either approve or deny the registration request,
   communicating this decision both to the review list and to IANA."
 -- http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-site-meta-03.txt

My experience is that this sort of latency results in developers
working around the IANA and IETF. Please set up a form so
that with latency of a few seconds, somebody can have their
token provisionally registered. (Perhaps an email callback
will have to precede the form.)

By way of example, consider the W3C XPointer Scheme Name Registry form
   http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-schemes/0register
(though it's perhaps not completely shiny either...
I see one example of "Status: Being reviewed
Last updated on 2006-10-11" on
http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-schemes/ )
        
I have tried to keep W3C out of the registry business all together,
but IANA is widely reputed to be slow and opaque, and my own
personal experience bears that out to some extent, so I can't
completely stop people who are willing to set up registries in W3C
(not to mention elsewhere...). If IANA has in fact gotten a lot better
lately, perhaps we just need to address the perception part.

As it is, section 5 doesn't even give an exact email
address of where to send registration requests. That sends
people on a scavenger hunt right from step 1.

Perhaps a/the "datatracker" addresses my concern about latency
and transparency... if mail to iana@iana.org results in an
automated "ticket" response, with a pointer to a status page that always
has a clear bound on the latency for the next step, that
would suffice (if it's actually documented in section 5).

Hmm... it's entitled "IETF I-D Tracker", which suggests
its scope doesn't include IANA registration requests.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 16:38:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:26 GMT