Re: draft-nottingham-site-meta-03 --> -04

[Mark Nottingham <mnot at mnot.net>]

On 29/10/2009, at 9:13 PM, Alfred HÎnes wrote:
> ad 1)  Please make the proper restriction to HTTP(S) URIs evident
>       from the document title as well, e.g.:
>
>                        Defining Well-Known URIs
> ---
>                      Defining Well-Known HTTP URIs
>
>       "by default" is inappropriate wording; unless you specify it
>       in the memo, other URI scheme definitions won't be changed.
>       No 'user' of the proposed registry can simply start (ab-)using
>       it for, say, 'dns' or 'rtsp' URIs !
>
>       Equally, the title of the IANA registry you want to establish
>       needs to be adapted, for the sake of precision and to avoid
>       confusion.

This was a conscious decision; as the draft explicitly notes, other  
URI schemes can opt into this convention, so the title would be  
misleading as soon as one did this.


> ad 2)  This shortening is a burden for both reviewers and designated
>       experts.  Experience has shown that it is in general unlikely
>       to get feedback in such short timespans because the community
>       is busy in a very bursty manner, and because it is impossible
>       to guarantee such short response time from a single
>       volunteering individual expert all over the year.
>       Having to establish an Expert group for backup does not seem
>       worth the effort and management overhead for such a registry.
>
>       I therefore heartly recommend that no review deadlines shorter
>       than a month should be specified.

As discussed, I and others disagree; the registry needs to be  
receptive, and two weeks is a reasonable expectation to set.


> ad 3)  As I said above, the overhead of multiple experts seems to be
>       inappropriate for such tiny registry.

If the registry is tiny and the work involved in approving a  
registration is slight, what is the overhead?


> ad 4)  Please use  {TBD} at ietf.org  (or similar)  and
>       include an RFC-Editor note requesting pre-publication fixup
>       -- that will be decided by the IESG in cooperation with IANA
>       (cf. RFC 5226) and need fixup shortly before RFC publication.


Will do.

Thanks,


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/