4395bis: inconsistent registration procedure

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

4395bis: inconsistent registration procedure

Peter Saint-Andre-2
<hat type='individual'/>

Section 6.1 of 4395bis states:

   The registration process is an optional mailing list
   review, followed by "Expert Review".

Yet Section 6.2 states:

   Someone wishing to register a new URI/IRI scheme MUST [...]

   3.  Send a copy of the template or a pointer to the containing
       document (with specific reference to the section with the
       template) to the mailing list [hidden email], requesting
       review.

Is the mailing list review optional or mandatory?

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4395bis: inconsistent registration procedure

Bjoern Hoehrmann
* Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

><hat type='individual'/>
>
>Section 6.1 of 4395bis states:
>
>   The registration process is an optional mailing list
>   review, followed by "Expert Review".
>
>Yet Section 6.2 states:
>
>   Someone wishing to register a new URI/IRI scheme MUST [...]
>
>   3.  Send a copy of the template or a pointer to the containing
>       document (with specific reference to the section with the
>       template) to the mailing list [hidden email], requesting
>       review.
>
>Is the mailing list review optional or mandatory?

RFC 4395 had it somewhere inbetween, with the equivalent of 6.2 saying
the above is a SHOULD and I note that the "optional" is lowercase, which
I would have taken to mean expert reviewers would insist on mailing list
reviews for "important" and "possibly controversial" proposals, but in
some cases they might feel it's not really necessary, so given that the
SHOULD has already been turned into a MUST, I would think this is no
longer optional. Section 8 would also have to be fixed if the Working
Group agrees to require mailing list review.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[hidden email] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4395bis: inconsistent registration procedure

Martin J. Dürst
I agree with making mailing list review required.

Regards,   Martin.

P.S.: Peter, does this have an issue number? If not, can you create an
issue, please?

On 2012/06/07 6:54, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> * Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> <hat type='individual'/>
>>
>> Section 6.1 of 4395bis states:
>>
>>    The registration process is an optional mailing list
>>    review, followed by "Expert Review".
>>
>> Yet Section 6.2 states:
>>
>>    Someone wishing to register a new URI/IRI scheme MUST [...]
>>
>>    3.  Send a copy of the template or a pointer to the containing
>>        document (with specific reference to the section with the
>>        template) to the mailing list [hidden email], requesting
>>        review.
>>
>> Is the mailing list review optional or mandatory?
>
> RFC 4395 had it somewhere inbetween, with the equivalent of 6.2 saying
> the above is a SHOULD and I note that the "optional" is lowercase, which
> I would have taken to mean expert reviewers would insist on mailing list
> reviews for "important" and "possibly controversial" proposals, but in
> some cases they might feel it's not really necessary, so given that the
> SHOULD has already been turned into a MUST, I would think this is no
> longer optional. Section 8 would also have to be fixed if the Working
> Group agrees to require mailing list review.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 4395bis: inconsistent registration procedure

Peter Saint-Andre-2
Hi Martin, I will create an issue in the tracker for this.

On 6/6/12 5:42 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:

> I agree with making mailing list review required.
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>
> P.S.: Peter, does this have an issue number? If not, can you create an
> issue, please?
>
> On 2012/06/07 6:54, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>> * Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> <hat type='individual'/>
>>>
>>> Section 6.1 of 4395bis states:
>>>
>>>    The registration process is an optional mailing list
>>>    review, followed by "Expert Review".
>>>
>>> Yet Section 6.2 states:
>>>
>>>    Someone wishing to register a new URI/IRI scheme MUST [...]
>>>
>>>    3.  Send a copy of the template or a pointer to the containing
>>>        document (with specific reference to the section with the
>>>        template) to the mailing list [hidden email], requesting
>>>        review.
>>>
>>> Is the mailing list review optional or mandatory?
>>
>> RFC 4395 had it somewhere inbetween, with the equivalent of 6.2 saying
>> the above is a SHOULD and I note that the "optional" is lowercase, which
>> I would have taken to mean expert reviewers would insist on mailing list
>> reviews for "important" and "possibly controversial" proposals, but in
>> some cases they might feel it's not really necessary, so given that the
>> SHOULD has already been turned into a MUST, I would think this is no
>> longer optional. Section 8 would also have to be fixed if the Working
>> Group agrees to require mailing list review.
>