[iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?

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

[iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?

iri issue tracker
#127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?

 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?

--
--------------------------------+-----------------
 Reporter:  stpeter@…           |      Owner:
     Type:  defect              |     Status:  new
 Priority:  major               |  Milestone:
Component:  4395bis             |    Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document  |   Keywords:
--------------------------------+-----------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/127>
iri <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?

iri issue tracker
#127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?


Comment (by masinter@…):

 I think we should just go with Expert Review, since Expert Review allows
 the expert to ask for a mailing list review if there are any questions.
 This simplifies the process.

 DELETE

    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.  In addition, request review on other relevant mailing
        lists as appropriate.  For example, general discussion of URI/IRI
        syntactical issues could be discussed on [hidden email]; schemes for
        a network protocol could be discussed on a mailing list for that
        protocol.  Allow a reasonable time for discussion and comments.
        Four weeks is reasonable for a permanent registration requests.
    4.  Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
        registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines
        given in this document.

 and

 OLD
    5.  Submit the (possibly updated) registration template (or pointer
        to document containing it) to IANA at [hidden email], specifying
        whether 'permanent' or 'provisional' registration is requested.


 NEW

    3. Submit the registration template (or pointer
       to the document containing it) to IANA at [hidden email], specifying
       the status of registration requested ('permanent', 'provisional',
 ...).

--
--------------------------------+------------------
 Reporter:  stpeter@…           |       Owner:
     Type:  defect              |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major               |   Milestone:
Component:  4395bis             |     Version:
 Severity:  Active WG Document  |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                      |
--------------------------------+------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/127#comment:1>
iri <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?

Ted Hardie-2
I disagree with Larry on this, but not terribly strongly.  It's my
impression that the mailing list review is good for the overall
process, as it helps folks see their particular need in a larger
community context.  It's a bit of extra hoop-jumping, but I think the
proposals that go through that review and get to the designated expert
are the better for it.

What's not clear, though, is how the mailing list traffic is then
interpreted.  This part of the instructions:

"Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines
given in this document."

makes it seems like the document author must make revisions, where it
is perfectly reasonable in some cases for them to consider the
feedback, then just ship it to the Expert Reviewer.

Perhaps we can make it mandatory, but change that stage to "After
considering the mailing list commentary, the submitter may wish to
update the document prior to sending to the Expert Reviewer  for a
decision."  Would that work?

Ted

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:29 AM, iri issue tracker
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?
>
>
> Comment (by masinter@…):
>
>  I think we should just go with Expert Review, since Expert Review allows
>  the expert to ask for a mailing list review if there are any questions.
>  This simplifies the process.
>
>  DELETE
>
>    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.  In addition, request review on other relevant mailing
>        lists as appropriate.  For example, general discussion of URI/IRI
>        syntactical issues could be discussed on [hidden email]; schemes for
>        a network protocol could be discussed on a mailing list for that
>        protocol.  Allow a reasonable time for discussion and comments.
>        Four weeks is reasonable for a permanent registration requests.
>    4.  Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
>        registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines
>        given in this document.
>
>  and
>
>  OLD
>    5.  Submit the (possibly updated) registration template (or pointer
>        to document containing it) to IANA at [hidden email], specifying
>        whether 'permanent' or 'provisional' registration is requested.
>
>
>  NEW
>
>    3. Submit the registration template (or pointer
>       to the document containing it) to IANA at [hidden email], specifying
>       the status of registration requested ('permanent', 'provisional',
>  ...).
>
> --
> --------------------------------+------------------
>  Reporter:  stpeter@…           |       Owner:
>     Type:  defect              |      Status:  new
>  Priority:  major               |   Milestone:
> Component:  4395bis             |     Version:
>  Severity:  Active WG Document  |  Resolution:
>  Keywords:                      |
> --------------------------------+------------------
>
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/127#comment:1>
> iri <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?

Martin J. Dürst
I also very much think that the mailing list review is helpful, just in
the way Ted has described it below. There are often various issues that
the submitters don't feel very sure about in the first place.

I also agree with Ted that we should be careful not to give the
impression that every single comment on the mailing list has to lead to
an edit. However, I think that the current language, i.e.

"Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines
given in this document."

isn't too bad. After all, if we can't tell people to follow this
document, then it wouldn't be worth working on it :-).

Regards,   Martin.

On 2012/06/07 17:12, Ted Hardie wrote:

> I disagree with Larry on this, but not terribly strongly.  It's my
> impression that the mailing list review is good for the overall
> process, as it helps folks see their particular need in a larger
> community context.  It's a bit of extra hoop-jumping, but I think the
> proposals that go through that review and get to the designated expert
> are the better for it.
>
> What's not clear, though, is how the mailing list traffic is then
> interpreted.  This part of the instructions:
>
> "Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
> registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines
> given in this document."
>
> makes it seems like the document author must make revisions, where it
> is perfectly reasonable in some cases for them to consider the
> feedback, then just ship it to the Expert Reviewer.
>
> Perhaps we can make it mandatory, but change that stage to "After
> considering the mailing list commentary, the submitter may wish to
> update the document prior to sending to the Expert Reviewer  for a
> decision."  Would that work?
>
> Ted
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:29 AM, iri issue tracker
> <[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?
>>
>>
>> Comment (by masinter@…):
>>
>>   I think we should just go with Expert Review, since Expert Review allows
>>   the expert to ask for a mailing list review if there are any questions.
>>   This simplifies the process.
>>
>>   DELETE
>>
>>     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.  In addition, request review on other relevant mailing
>>         lists as appropriate.  For example, general discussion of URI/IRI
>>         syntactical issues could be discussed on [hidden email]; schemes for
>>         a network protocol could be discussed on a mailing list for that
>>         protocol.  Allow a reasonable time for discussion and comments.
>>         Four weeks is reasonable for a permanent registration requests.
>>     4.  Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
>>         registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines
>>         given in this document.
>>
>>   and
>>
>>   OLD
>>     5.  Submit the (possibly updated) registration template (or pointer
>>         to document containing it) to IANA at [hidden email], specifying
>>         whether 'permanent' or 'provisional' registration is requested.
>>
>>
>>   NEW
>>
>>     3. Submit the registration template (or pointer
>>        to the document containing it) to IANA at [hidden email], specifying
>>        the status of registration requested ('permanent', 'provisional',
>>   ...).
>>
>> --
>> --------------------------------+------------------
>>   Reporter:  stpeter@…           |       Owner:
>>      Type:  defect              |      Status:  new
>>   Priority:  major               |   Milestone:
>> Component:  4395bis             |     Version:
>>   Severity:  Active WG Document  |  Resolution:
>>   Keywords:                      |
>> --------------------------------+------------------
>>
>> Ticket URL:<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/127#comment:1>
>> iri<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>
>>
>>
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?

Peter Saint-Andre-2
In reply to this post by Ted Hardie-2
On 6/7/12 2:12 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:

> I disagree with Larry on this, but not terribly strongly.  It's my
> impression that the mailing list review is good for the overall
> process, as it helps folks see their particular need in a larger
> community context.  It's a bit of extra hoop-jumping, but I think the
> proposals that go through that review and get to the designated expert
> are the better for it.
>
> What's not clear, though, is how the mailing list traffic is then
> interpreted.  This part of the instructions:
>
> "Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
> registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines
> given in this document."
>
> makes it seems like the document author must make revisions, where it
> is perfectly reasonable in some cases for them to consider the
> feedback, then just ship it to the Expert Reviewer.
>
> Perhaps we can make it mandatory, but change that stage to "After
> considering the mailing list commentary, the submitter may wish to
> update the document prior to sending to the Expert Reviewer  for a
> decision."  Would that work?

<hat type='individual'/>

Yes, that would work. I thought that was covered by "as needed", but
your description is clearer.

Peter

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





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?

Dave Thaler-2
In reply to this post by Martin J. Dürst
With the review, the process is currently specified to be 6 weeks for
a registration (allow up to 4 weeks for list discussion at least for
Permanent [Provisional is unspecified], then
the IANA/designated expert has a 2-week timeout) assuming the
requester and IANA both do their steps without noticeable delay.

That's a long time for someone who today simply doesn't follow the
process and squats on a value.   So if we want to discourage that behavior
we have to make sure it's lightweight.

I'd recommend that mailing list review is mandatory for Permanent
and optional for Provisional registrations.

Rationale...

Regarding Larry's statement
>>   I think we should just go with Expert Review, since Expert Review allows
>>   the expert to ask for a mailing list review if there are any questions.

Keep in mind there's the rule that:
>   6.  Unless Expert Review has explicitly rejected the registration
>       request within two weeks, IANA should automatically add the
>       registration in the 'provisional' registry.

So it's true that the expert can ask for a mailing list review, but unless
the expert explicitly rejects it within two weeks, a provisional registration
has to be granted.  So the mailing list review would have to be less
than two weeks.   That's not unreasonable give that the mailing list
review text says:
> Four weeks is reasonable for a permanent registration requests.
But has no text about what's reasonable for provisional requests.
So if we agree that <2 weeks is reasonable for provisional, then
it can be optional and triggered by the expert as needed as Larry suggests.
But unless you change the timeouts, it has to be mandatory for
Permanent since you can't fit 4 weeks of review into a 2 week timeout.

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 5:38 AM
> To: Ted Hardie
> Cc: iri issue tracker; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?
>
> I also very much think that the mailing list review is helpful, just in the way
> Ted has described it below. There are often various issues that the submitters
> don't feel very sure about in the first place.
>
> I also agree with Ted that we should be careful not to give the impression that
> every single comment on the mailing list has to lead to an edit. However, I
> think that the current language, i.e.
>
> "Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
> registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines given in this
> document."
>
> isn't too bad. After all, if we can't tell people to follow this document, then it
> wouldn't be worth working on it :-).
>
> Regards,   Martin.
>
> On 2012/06/07 17:12, Ted Hardie wrote:
> > I disagree with Larry on this, but not terribly strongly.  It's my
> > impression that the mailing list review is good for the overall
> > process, as it helps folks see their particular need in a larger
> > community context.  It's a bit of extra hoop-jumping, but I think the
> > proposals that go through that review and get to the designated expert
> > are the better for it.
> >
> > What's not clear, though, is how the mailing list traffic is then
> > interpreted.  This part of the instructions:
> >
> > "Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
> > registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines given
> > in this document."
> >
> > makes it seems like the document author must make revisions, where it
> > is perfectly reasonable in some cases for them to consider the
> > feedback, then just ship it to the Expert Reviewer.
> >
> > Perhaps we can make it mandatory, but change that stage to "After
> > considering the mailing list commentary, the submitter may wish to
> > update the document prior to sending to the Expert Reviewer  for a
> > decision."  Would that work?
> >
> > Ted
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:29 AM, iri issue tracker
> > <[hidden email]>  wrote:
> >> #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?
> >>
> >>
> >> Comment (by masinter@…):
> >>
> >>   I think we should just go with Expert Review, since Expert Review allows
> >>   the expert to ask for a mailing list review if there are any questions.
> >>   This simplifies the process.
> >>
> >>   DELETE
> >>
> >>     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.  In addition, request review on other relevant mailing
> >>         lists as appropriate.  For example, general discussion of URI/IRI
> >>         syntactical issues could be discussed on [hidden email]; schemes for
> >>         a network protocol could be discussed on a mailing list for that
> >>         protocol.  Allow a reasonable time for discussion and comments.
> >>         Four weeks is reasonable for a permanent registration requests.
> >>     4.  Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
> >>         registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines
> >>         given in this document.
> >>
> >>   and
> >>
> >>   OLD
> >>     5.  Submit the (possibly updated) registration template (or pointer
> >>         to document containing it) to IANA at [hidden email], specifying
> >>         whether 'permanent' or 'provisional' registration is requested.
> >>
> >>
> >>   NEW
> >>
> >>     3. Submit the registration template (or pointer
> >>        to the document containing it) to IANA at [hidden email], specifying
> >>        the status of registration requested ('permanent', 'provisional',
> >>   ...).
> >>
> >> --
> >> --------------------------------+------------------
> >>   Reporter:  stpeter@…           |       Owner:
> >>      Type:  defect              |      Status:  new
> >>   Priority:  major               |   Milestone:
> >> Component:  4395bis             |     Version:
> >>   Severity:  Active WG Document  |  Resolution:
> >>   Keywords:                      |
> >> --------------------------------+------------------
> >>
> >> Ticket
> >> URL:<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/127#comment:1>
> >> iri<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?

Alexey Melnikov
On 12/07/2012 19:04, Dave Thaler wrote:
> With the review, the process is currently specified to be 6 weeks for
> a registration (allow up to 4 weeks for list discussion at least for
> Permanent [Provisional is unspecified], then
> the IANA/designated expert has a 2-week timeout) assuming the
> requester and IANA both do their steps without noticeable delay.
>
> That's a long time for someone who today simply doesn't follow the
> process and squats on a value.   So if we want to discourage that behavior
> we have to make sure it's lightweight.
Agreed.
> I'd recommend that mailing list review is mandatory for Permanent
> and optional for Provisional registrations.
Making them optional or very short would work for me.

>
> Rationale...
>
> Regarding Larry's statement
>>>    I think we should just go with Expert Review, since Expert Review allows
>>>    the expert to ask for a mailing list review if there are any questions.
> Keep in mind there's the rule that:
>>    6.  Unless Expert Review has explicitly rejected the registration
>>        request within two weeks, IANA should automatically add the
>>        registration in the 'provisional' registry.
> So it's true that the expert can ask for a mailing list review, but unless
> the expert explicitly rejects it within two weeks, a provisional registration
> has to be granted.  So the mailing list review would have to be less
> than two weeks.   That's not unreasonable give that the mailing list
> review text says:
>> Four weeks is reasonable for a permanent registration requests.
> But has no text about what's reasonable for provisional requests.
> So if we agree that <2 weeks is reasonable for provisional, then
> it can be optional and triggered by the expert as needed as Larry suggests.
> But unless you change the timeouts, it has to be mandatory for
> Permanent since you can't fit 4 weeks of review into a 2 week timeout.
>
> -Dave


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?

Martin J. Dürst
In reply to this post by Dave Thaler-2
I agree with mandatory for permanent and optional for provisional. But
it's more that I think this makes sense in general (and the timeouts are
already set so that works out), rather than that we have to do it that
way to make sure it fits the timeouts (which we could change if we wanted).

I also think that in terms of wording, we shouldn't use the term
"mandatory". Just make a list of what has to happen for registration,
and put list review in there, saying "(optional for provisional
registrations)".

Regards,   Martin.

On 2012/07/13 3:04, Dave Thaler wrote:

> With the review, the process is currently specified to be 6 weeks for
> a registration (allow up to 4 weeks for list discussion at least for
> Permanent [Provisional is unspecified], then
> the IANA/designated expert has a 2-week timeout) assuming the
> requester and IANA both do their steps without noticeable delay.
>
> That's a long time for someone who today simply doesn't follow the
> process and squats on a value.   So if we want to discourage that behavior
> we have to make sure it's lightweight.
>
> I'd recommend that mailing list review is mandatory for Permanent
> and optional for Provisional registrations.
>
> Rationale...
>
> Regarding Larry's statement
>>>    I think we should just go with Expert Review, since Expert Review allows
>>>    the expert to ask for a mailing list review if there are any questions.
>
> Keep in mind there's the rule that:
>>    6.  Unless Expert Review has explicitly rejected the registration
>>        request within two weeks, IANA should automatically add the
>>        registration in the 'provisional' registry.
>
> So it's true that the expert can ask for a mailing list review, but unless
> the expert explicitly rejects it within two weeks, a provisional registration
> has to be granted.  So the mailing list review would have to be less
> than two weeks.   That's not unreasonable give that the mailing list
> review text says:
>> Four weeks is reasonable for a permanent registration requests.
> But has no text about what's reasonable for provisional requests.
> So if we agree that<2 weeks is reasonable for provisional, then
> it can be optional and triggered by the expert as needed as Larry suggests.
> But unless you change the timeouts, it has to be mandatory for
> Permanent since you can't fit 4 weeks of review into a 2 week timeout.
>
> -Dave
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 5:38 AM
>> To: Ted Hardie
>> Cc: iri issue tracker; [hidden email]; [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [iri] #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?
>>
>> I also very much think that the mailing list review is helpful, just in the way
>> Ted has described it below. There are often various issues that the submitters
>> don't feel very sure about in the first place.
>>
>> I also agree with Ted that we should be careful not to give the impression that
>> every single comment on the mailing list has to lead to an edit. However, I
>> think that the current language, i.e.
>>
>> "Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
>> registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines given in this
>> document."
>>
>> isn't too bad. After all, if we can't tell people to follow this document, then it
>> wouldn't be worth working on it :-).
>>
>> Regards,   Martin.
>>
>> On 2012/06/07 17:12, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>> I disagree with Larry on this, but not terribly strongly.  It's my
>>> impression that the mailing list review is good for the overall
>>> process, as it helps folks see their particular need in a larger
>>> community context.  It's a bit of extra hoop-jumping, but I think the
>>> proposals that go through that review and get to the designated expert
>>> are the better for it.
>>>
>>> What's not clear, though, is how the mailing list traffic is then
>>> interpreted.  This part of the instructions:
>>>
>>> "Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
>>> registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines given
>>> in this document."
>>>
>>> makes it seems like the document author must make revisions, where it
>>> is perfectly reasonable in some cases for them to consider the
>>> feedback, then just ship it to the Expert Reviewer.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we can make it mandatory, but change that stage to "After
>>> considering the mailing list commentary, the submitter may wish to
>>> update the document prior to sending to the Expert Reviewer  for a
>>> decision."  Would that work?
>>>
>>> Ted
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:29 AM, iri issue tracker
>>> <[hidden email]>   wrote:
>>>> #127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Comment (by masinter@…):
>>>>
>>>>    I think we should just go with Expert Review, since Expert Review allows
>>>>    the expert to ask for a mailing list review if there are any questions.
>>>>    This simplifies the process.
>>>>
>>>>    DELETE
>>>>
>>>>      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.  In addition, request review on other relevant mailing
>>>>          lists as appropriate.  For example, general discussion of URI/IRI
>>>>          syntactical issues could be discussed on [hidden email]; schemes for
>>>>          a network protocol could be discussed on a mailing list for that
>>>>          protocol.  Allow a reasonable time for discussion and comments.
>>>>          Four weeks is reasonable for a permanent registration requests.
>>>>      4.  Respond to review comments and make revisions to the proposed
>>>>          registration as needed to bring it into line with the guidelines
>>>>          given in this document.
>>>>
>>>>    and
>>>>
>>>>    OLD
>>>>      5.  Submit the (possibly updated) registration template (or pointer
>>>>          to document containing it) to IANA at [hidden email], specifying
>>>>          whether 'permanent' or 'provisional' registration is requested.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    NEW
>>>>
>>>>      3. Submit the registration template (or pointer
>>>>         to the document containing it) to IANA at [hidden email], specifying
>>>>         the status of registration requested ('permanent', 'provisional',
>>>>    ...).
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --------------------------------+------------------
>>>>    Reporter:  stpeter@…           |       Owner:
>>>>       Type:  defect              |      Status:  new
>>>>    Priority:  major               |   Milestone:
>>>> Component:  4395bis             |     Version:
>>>>    Severity:  Active WG Document  |  Resolution:
>>>>    Keywords:                      |
>>>> --------------------------------+------------------
>>>>
>>>> Ticket
>>>> URL:<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/127#comment:1>
>>>> iri<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>