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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:08:35 +1100
Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <50438369-DECF-4169-878A-3B77B8B29236@mnot.net>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
... proposed changes at:
   http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-site-meta-04.txt
diff:
   http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-site-meta-04-from-3.diff.html

It may be that we can reuse uri-review@, but for the time being I've  
specified a new list.

Cheers,


On 23/10/2009, at 3:38 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> 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
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2009 01:09:18 GMT

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