[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 uri-***@ietf.org, 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/>

[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 uri-***@ietf.org, 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 ***@w3.org; 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 ***@iana.org, specifying
whether 'permanent' or 'provisional' registration is requested.


NEW

3. Submit the registration template (or pointer
to the document containing it) to IANA at ***@iana.org, 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/>

[Ted Hardie]

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

Post by iri issue tracker
#127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?
 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
       review.  In addition, request review on other relevant mailing
       lists as appropriate.  For example, general discussion of URI/IRI
       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
       whether 'permanent' or 'provisional' registration is requested.
 NEW
   3. Submit the registration template (or pointer
      the status of registration requested ('permanent', 'provisional',
 ...).
--
--------------------------------+------------------
    Type:  defect              |      Status:  new
 Keywords:                      |
--------------------------------+------------------
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/127#comment:1>
iri <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>

[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.

Post by Ted Hardie
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
"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

Post by iri issue tracker
#127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?
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
review. In addition, request review on other relevant mailing
lists as appropriate. For example, general discussion of URI/IRI
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
whether 'permanent' or 'provisional' registration is requested.
NEW
3. Submit the registration template (or pointer
the status of registration requested ('permanent', 'provisional',
...).
--
--------------------------------+------------------
Type: defect | Status: new
Keywords: |
--------------------------------+------------------
Ticket URL:<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/127#comment:1>
iri<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>

[Dave Thaler]

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

Post by iri issue tracker
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.

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

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-----
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 5:38 AM
To: Ted Hardie
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.

Post by iri issue tracker
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
"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

Post by iri issue tracker
#127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?
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
review. In addition, request review on other relevant mailing
lists as appropriate. For example, general discussion of URI/IRI
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
whether 'permanent' or 'provisional' registration is requested.
NEW
3. Submit the registration template (or pointer
the status of registration requested ('permanent', 'provisional',
...).
--
--------------------------------+------------------
Type: defect | Status: new
Keywords: |
--------------------------------+------------------
Ticket
URL:<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/127#comment:1>

[Alexey Melnikov]

Post by Dave Thaler
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.

Post by Dave Thaler
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.

Post by Dave Thaler
Rationale...
Regarding Larry's statement

Post by iri issue tracker
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.

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

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

[Martin J. Dürst]

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.

Post by Dave Thaler
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

Post by iri issue tracker
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.

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

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-----
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 5:38 AM
To: Ted Hardie
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.

Post by iri issue tracker
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
"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

Post by iri issue tracker
#127: mailing list review: optional or mandatory?
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
review. In addition, request review on other relevant mailing
lists as appropriate. For example, general discussion of URI/IRI
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
whether 'permanent' or 'provisional' registration is requested.
NEW
3. Submit the registration template (or pointer
the status of registration requested ('permanent', 'provisional',
...).
--
--------------------------------+------------------
Type: defect | Status: new
Keywords: |
--------------------------------+------------------
Ticket
URL:<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/127#comment:1>
iri<http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/>

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Post by Ted Hardie
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
"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