4395bis: inconsistent registration procedure

[Peter Saint-Andre]

<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 uri-***@ietf.org, requesting
review.

Is the mailing list review optional or mandatory?

Peter

[Bjoern Hoehrmann]

Post by Peter Saint-Andre
<hat type='individual'/>
The registration process is an optional mailing list
review, followed by "Expert Review".
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
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.

[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?

Post by Bjoern Hoehrmann

Post by Peter Saint-Andre
<hat type='individual'/>
The registration process is an optional mailing list
review, followed by "Expert Review".
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
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.

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Hi Martin, I will create an issue in the tracker for this.

Post by 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?

Post by Bjoern Hoehrmann

Post by Peter Saint-Andre
<hat type='individual'/>
The registration process is an optional mailing list
review, followed by "Expert Review".
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
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.