RE: comments on draft-hansen-2717bis-2718bis-uri-guidelines-02

> In fact, skipping through the rest of the spec indicates that RFC 2434
> is completely absent (it should be a normative reference) and the
> document needs to incorporate its terminology for policies -- that should
> cut the length and make it much easier for IANA to review and apply.

Speaking of that, the provisional registration process is currently
First Come First Served (anyone can register anything).  Shouldn't it
at least be Expert Review so that there's an opportunity for someone
clueful to catch "big picture" issues about consistency of new schemes
with the rest of the world?  The RFC resulting from this draft
would then be the guidance that the expert reviewer would be expected
to follow (and in turn establish a minimum expectation for quality
of what can be registered).

David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754

Received on Thursday, 6 January 2005 22:54:19 UTC