- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:16:12 +1100
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- 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>
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 UTC