- From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:26:09 +0200
- To: public-iri@w3.org
- Cc: duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
2011/2/16, iri issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>: > #57: Add some language similar to RFC 3864, section 4.4 > > > Comment(by duerst@…): > > Additional information from Graham Klyne: > > I wouldn't necessarily hold up the text from RFC3864 as a shining example > of what might be said, as on re-reading that the intent isn't crystal > clear in light of subsequent discussions. But I appreciate that you have > picked up the notion in the spirit intended. > > My further thoughts are: > > 1. that any text should be framed in terms of negotiation and consensus > forming rather than objections to registration > > 2. that any text should emphasize that the majority of non-contentious > registrations should incur very little administrative overhead on part of > IANA or IESG > > 3. that the role of IESG as final arbiter is a role that should be invoked > exceptionally rather than routinely. > > Thus, maybe something like this: > [[ > The registration procedure for URI schemes is intended to be very > lightweight for non-contentious registrations. For the most part, we > expect the good sense of submitters and reviewers, guided by these > procedures, to achieve an acceptable and useful consensus for the > community. > > In exceptional cases, where the negotiating parties cannot form a > consensus, the final arbiter of any contested registration shall be the > IESG. > > If parties achieve consensus on a registration proposal that does not > fully conform to the strict wording of this procedure, this should be > drawn to the attention of a relevant member of the IESG. Who is the *relevant* member of IESG? And what is if it is a provisional regsitration in not-IETF RFC, eg Independent Submission? Who will be the relevant IESG member then? I propose to leave the IESG without the words 'relevant member of' in this proposal. Mykyta Yevstifeyev > ]] > I think this pretty much covers what happens at the moment. > > -- > ------------------------------------+--------------------------------------- > Reporter: duerst@… | Owner: > Type: defect | Status: new > Priority: major | Milestone: > Component: 4395bis | Version: > Severity: - | Keywords: > ------------------------------------+--------------------------------------- > > Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/57#comment:1> > iri <http://tools.ietf.org/bof/iri/> > > >
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2011 09:26:42 UTC