- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:08:35 +1100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, www-archive@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 UTC