Re: feedback on ISSUE-27 survey feedback, Re: ISSUE-27: rel-ownership - Straw Poll for Objections

Julian, are you commenting in an official IANA capacity here? If so,
I'd like to cite this email as evidence that IANA has no intention of

/ Jonas

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Julian Reschke <> wrote:
> On 17.03.2011 17:36, Paul Cotton wrote:
>> ...
> In <>,
> Jonas writes:
>> IANA does not have a good track record of operating registries that affect
>> formats higher up in the protocol stack. For example the HTTP header
>> registry is notoriously out of date and so far IANA seems to have made no
>> effort to fix this. Instead blame is being pushed around and no change
>> occurs. For example, IANA appears to be completely unwilling to go out and
>> look at what is out there and add it to the registry, and instead insist
>> that other people add things to the appropriate registry, leading to absurd
>> situations where headers are known by everyone except the actual registry.
> This is a (common) misunderstanding.
> The IANA function is *purely* administrative.
> What get's into the registry and how it gets there only depends on the
> specification that defines the registry, and the rules it sets up.
> It is *not* IANA's role to go out and add entries just because somebody uses
> them. Consider them as a web site, nothing more, if this helps.
> Most IANA registries depend on *people* submitting registry entries to a
> review mailing list. That is, either those who mint the new values, or
> others who try to clean up behind them.
> Looking at HTTP header fields... the registration process is defined in
> <>. There's both a permanent and
> a provisional registry, where the latter only requires a citeable spec,
> registration template, and an email to the review mailing list (specified in
> RFC 3864).
>> To make this worse, despite claims to the contrary, IANAs registration
>> process is so heavy weight that many people give up. See the experiences
>> documented here for an example:
> But make sure you read the subsequent thread, plus consider the current
> registry's contents (hint: all HTML5 link relations without open bugs in
> *this* WG should be in the registry, and have been for quite some time).
>> While IANA has claimed that changes can be made to improve the situation,
>> so far it doesn't appear that these changes have been made giving me little
>> reason to believe that they will in the future. And no reason to believe
>> that they'll be made in a satisfactory way.
> I think you're mixing up IANA with various people active in the IETF. Do
> not. And also keep in mind that IANA runs many registries, with different
> requirements, and different levels of transparency and responsiveness.
> If you want to argue against the IANA Link Relations registry, please use
> *that* one as example.
> Furthermore, going back to message headers: if you are unhappy about
> unregistered values in wide use then please consider writing up a small
> specification and submit it for provisional registration. I'll be happy to
> help, and suspect the Mozilla Wiki might already contain relevant
> information.
>> If IANA want to be responsible for running the rel registry I think they
>> need to prove themselves first. Let them show that they are running a rel
>> registry which is up to date. Either by asking people who register in
>> whatever official registry we come up with to also register with IANA (that
>> should give them incentive to keep the bar for registering low), or by
>> manually adding the entries themselves. Something that they undoubtedly will
>> need to do even if they were the official registry as no matter how low we
>> make the bar, some people won't know or care enough to register.
> See above. IANA does none of this. People need to.
> Best regards, Julian
> PS: chairs, please consider this feedback when deciding on ISSUE-27.

Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 18:32:44 UTC