Re: enum services registry question

Hi Ed,

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-08.txt
gives some guidance in this (section 4.1.):

  Specification required - Values and their meaning must be
    documented in an RFC or other permanent and readily
    available public specification, in sufficient detail so
    that interoperability between independent implementations
    is possible. When used, Specification Required also implies
    usage of a Designated Expert, who will review the public
    specification and evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear
    to allow interoperable implementations. The intention
    behind "permanent and readily available" is that a document
    can be reasonably be expected to easily be found long after
    IANA assignment of the requested value. Publication of an
    RFC is the ideal means of achieving this requirement. [...]


The term "permanent and readily available public specification" states the 
intension, but I think it is a bit vague, when it comes to what qualifies 
to this term. Furthermore it does not say much about the change management 
of such a specification.

To be on the safe side, I guess we should ensure that a copy of the 
specification (as reviewed by expert) is always maintained at IANA, 
unless there is an RFC (that can be simply referenced).

On the other hand, this looks like an issue to be solved on rfc2434bis 
level. (I therefore have CC:ed the authors of rfc2434bis to this email.)


Propsosal:

  Unless there is some better solution proposed, I'll put a section
  "reference" to the new IANA template in
  draft-ietf-enum-enumservices-guide.
  There can be either a reference to the RFC or an IANA internal reference
  to the version of the specification after approval by the experts.

Makes sense?

cheers,
  Bernie


PS: It would be quite a bit easier, if we decided on "RFC required" 
instead...;-)




On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Edward Lewis wrote:

> At 20:39 +0100 1/4/08, Bernie Hoeneisen wrote:
>
>> There will be additional fun to figure out, how this will work with the new
>> regime (as decided in Vancouver), where an RFC will no longer be required
>> for registering an Enumservice...
>
> Heh, well, I'd settle for any kind of reference for the enumservices *and* 
> the URI schemes!
>
> Consider this a lesson learned from IANA registrations of DNS parameters.  We 
> have some RR types (http://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters) defined 
> only by a human - a name and an email address.  It takes a good bit of 
> googling to find any notes stuffed in other, non-IETF, corners of the 
> net-universe to find the specifications.  Even having sent fixes to IANA 
> hasn't (completely) rectified the problem of missing documents and broken 
> references.
> -- 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
> NeuStar
>
> Think glocally.  Act confused.
>
> _______________________________________________
> enum mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum
>