W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2011

Re: Tracking of pending media type/charset/URI registrations

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:16:12 +1100
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>, Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton@icann.org>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>, Roy Fielding <fielding@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8A7BAB9E-1371-4551-9818-A4AC097B2026@mnot.net>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
I think a meeting (in a room, not just a hallway) at Prague re: this is an excellent idea.

Can we make that happen?

Cheers,


On 21/02/2011, at 11:39 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> (Moving cc from tag to public www-tag; noting that this is part of my tag ACTION-531 "Write draft document on architectural good practice relating to registries" taken at the last TAG face-to-face meeting):
> 
> I believe that there are a number of voices  who would rather see MIME types, URI schemes, charset declarations, link relationships, and other values now defined as IANA registries instead be maintained in a Wiki (presumably one in which they and everyone else have some editorial control), or by some organization over which they feel like they have some control.
> 
> In some cases, groups have 'routed around' the registries by proposing protocols which reuse registered values with other meanings (using a "willful violation").  In at least one case, a  W3C working groups felt that establishing and managing an IANA registry  was inappropriate, and instead started a W3C registry.  
> 
> I don't think the issue is solely a "web" or "W3C" issue, though. I ran into a similar issue with 3GPP and the media feature registry when I was expert reviewer for those values (used in SIP), which is why I'd like to see if there was a more general IANA solution rather than a narrower W3C solution or an even narrower HTML solution. 
> 
> I think this is as much a political/power issue than an operational process one.  (I am reminded of the struggle for management of DNS root virtual real estate.)
> 
> The fact that the web is full of deployed products and services that happily use unregistered values for  things without IANA entries leads me to believe there is a problem which is broader than "transparency" or "education" or "miscommunication". 
> 
> I'm wonderin if there is a hybrid approach, where preliminary values can be documented in a Wiki or tracker or other mechanism, but that more open space is also linked to a more "official" registry in which registered values have undergone the review process originally designated for them, including expert review or community consensus. 
> 
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK-lists@ninebynine.org] 
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 2:42 AM
> To: Larry Masinter
> Cc: Michelle Cotton; Alexey Melnikov; Philippe Le Hégaret; Roy Fielding; tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Tracking of pending media type/charset/URI registrations
> 
> Yes, I think improving transparency and disclosure (and timeliness) would be 
> positive.
> 
> I know I'm sometimes a bit slow in responding to registration review requests 
> (on the order of weeks, not months), but I'm unaware of any case where a 
> provisional scheme registration has been prevented from proceeding reasonably 
> promptly.
> 
> There was a case last year when I asked the requesting group to delay a 
> registration (ws:) because there was some live discussion about the choice of 
> scheme name, but I think I made it clear the request wasn't being blocked.
> 
> I suspect, but have little evidence, that the perceived problems are a lack of 
> awareness of the lightweight procedure available for provisional registrations 
> (of URI schemes).
> 
> Maybe a practical approach might be for any request to result in an immediate 
> "registration requested" or "pending" entry in the provisional registry, so that 
> people can see a quick response.  This has a disadvantage that each request 
> would result in additional IANA actions (one to post the request, then to remove 
> the "pending" flag.
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> Larry Masinter wrote:
>> I don't think the problem is that IANA isn't doing the right thing,
>> it's more that there is a gap between what IANA and IESG and expert
>> reviewers are doing vs. what many in the community seem to want --
>> a light-weight way of noting things that *should* be registered,
>> an easy way of finding out about registration applications and 
>> expert reviewer comments, etc.
>> 
>> I don't have the complete list of requirements and it may be premature
>> to conclude what the solutions are, which is why I'd like to gather
>> together.
>> 
>> Some of the difficulties may be rooted in a power struggle, over
>> "who is in charge", partially analogous  to the issues that arose
>> over control of the top level domain in DNS: ownership of the
>> right to change the definition of crucial registered values
>> (the meaning of "text/html" or even "image/jpeg") might have
>> some economic implications which support uncooperative behavior.
>> 
>> I'm not sure it's possible to address those kinds of issues
>> directly, but focusing on transparency and disclosure I hope
>> can help reduce some of the friction.
>> 
>> Larry
>> --
>> http://larry.masinter.net
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michelle Cotton [mailto:michelle.cotton@icann.org] 
>> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 12:39 PM
>> To: Larry Masinter
>> Cc: Alexey Melnikov; Philippe Le Hégaret; Graham Klyne; Roy Fielding; tag@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Tracking of pending media type/charset/URI registrations
>> 
>> Thanks for the background Larry.  I would love to explore more if these were
>> IANA delays or other delays.  We are working very hard to make the process
>> as smooth as possible for obtaining registrations in IANA maintained
>> registries.  There are some parts that are out of our control.
>> 
>> I would love to work with all parties to make sure the procedures are clear
>> and that the process will work for registries where there have been issues.
>> If IANA ticket numbers can be provided, this will help us track down the
>> requests on our end.
>> 
>> I look forward to talking with you all.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> --Michelle
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/17/11 11:43 AM, "Larry Masinter" <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Michelle,
>>> 
>>> Philippe Le Hégaret in W3C was looking at complaints that
>>> W3C working groups have had about not slow responses on
>>> registration requests. He had some examples of places where
>>> a MIME registration was in progress for years, for example,
>>> and W3C was maintaining their own list of registrations
>>> applied for and status.
>>> 
>>> So at a minimum I'd look at those cases and what the nature
>>> of the complaints are. Philippe, can you review these with
>>> Michelle?
>>> 
>>> In particular, the HTML working group is wrestling over
>>> a proposal to use or not use IANA for "link relations" because
>>> of a perception that IANA didn't "work". There's a long
>>> discussion of this in HTML working group, but maybe we could
>>> get some of those participants to join the conversation.
>>> 
>>> Secondly, I am looking at some of the information that is
>>> either missing or wrong or not updated in MIME registries,
>>> and I have an internet draft
>>>  draft-masinter-mime-web-info
>>> that I'm working on that catalogs some of the problems. In
>>> some cases the registry needs updating, in some cases the process
>>> needs to be more transparent.
>>> 
>>> In the case of URI scheme registration, again, there is a gap
>>> in time between "name observed in use" and "registration applied
>>> for" which can be years, and another gap between "registration
>>> applied for" and "registration accepted" which can take years,
>>> and then after the registration is accepted, no process for
>>> errata or even capturing expert reviewer comments.
>>> 
>>> Anyway, that's some background.
>>> 
>>> Larry
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Michelle Cotton [mailto:michelle.cotton@icann.org]
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:53 AM
>>> To: LMM@acm.org
>>> Cc: Alexey Melnikov
>>> Subject: Tracking of pending media type/charset/URI registrations
>>> 
>>> Hello Larry,
>>> 
>>> Alexey suggested checking with you regarding the topic you brought up with
>>> him described below.
>>> 
>>> I wanted to get a feel for what you are looking for and possible examples
>>> where the current process didn't work before we explore options of how to do
>>> things different.
>>> 
>>> Can you provide me with some more information?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Michelle
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ------ Forwarded Message
>>> From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
>>> Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 09:03:23 -0800
>>> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
>>> Subject: Management item: tracking of pending media type/charset/URI
>>> registrations
>>> 
>>> Dear Secretariat (BCCed),
>>> Please add this management item to the February 17th telechat.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alexey
>>> 
>>> -------------
>>> 
>>> IANA (and IESG),
>>> 
>>> Larry Masinter suggested the following:
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> I¹m wondering whether IANA might use a public tracker (or something like
>>> it) to note pending registrations, reviewer comments, responses, and to
>>> link the registration itself to the comments and replies. The tracker
>>> could point to a mail archive if the responses were in an archived email
>>> list where the archive was maintained as carefully as the registry itself.
>>> 
>>> In general, we have situations where registrations don¹t quite meet the
>>> criteria for the registry but, because the registered values are already
>>> widely deployed, not putting them in the registry seems counter-productive.
>>> 
>>> These issues apply to MIME types, charset registries and URI schemes.
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> I am wondering if this can be done easily by IANA.
>>> 
>>> I am also wondering if this is actually modifying IANA registration
>>> processes for the corresponding registries.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 25 February 2011 02:16:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:30 GMT