Opened 9 years ago

Closed 9 years ago

#57 closed defect (fixed)

Add some language similar to RFC 3864, section 4.4

Reported by: duerst@… Owned by:
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: 4395bis Version:
Severity: - Keywords:
Cc:

Description

Graham Klyne proposed (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/2011Feb/0016.html) that we should look at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3864#page-10 for some text helping to smooth the process (i.e. be able to do things when they seem just right, even if they don't necessarily meat all the letters of the spec, and have the IESG as a final arbiter).

Change History (2)

comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by duerst@…

Additional information from Graham Klyne:

I wouldn't necessarily hold up the text from RFC3864 as a shining example of what might be said, as on re-reading that the intent isn't crystal clear in light of subsequent discussions. But I appreciate that you have picked up the notion in the spirit intended.

My further thoughts are:

  1. that any text should be framed in terms of negotiation and consensus forming rather than objections to registration
  1. that any text should emphasize that the majority of non-contentious registrations should incur very little administrative overhead on part of IANA or IESG
  1. that the role of IESG as final arbiter is a role that should be invoked exceptionally rather than routinely.

Thus, maybe something like this:
[[
The registration procedure for URI schemes is intended to be very lightweight for non-contentious registrations. For the most part, we expect the good sense of submitters and reviewers, guided by these procedures, to achieve an acceptable and useful consensus for the community.

In exceptional cases, where the negotiating parties cannot form a consensus, the final arbiter of any contested registration shall be the IESG.

If parties achieve consensus on a registration proposal that does not fully conform to the strict wording of this procedure, this should be drawn to the attention of a relevant member of the IESG.
]]

I think this pretty much covers what happens at the moment.

comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by duerst@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed

Fixed in draft -01 by adding the following text:

The registration procedure for URI schemes is intended to be very
lightweight for non-contentious registrations. For the most part, we
expect the good sense of submitters and reviewers, guided by these
procedures, to achieve an acceptable and useful consensus for the
community.

In exceptional cases, where the negotiating parties cannot form a
consensus, the final arbiter of any contested registration shall be
the IESG.

If parties achieve consensus on a registration proposal that does not
fully conform to the strict wording of this procedure, this should be
drawn to the attention of a relevant member of the IESG.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.