Re: enum services registry question

Bernie Hoeneisen <[email protected]> writes:

> 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. [...]

FWIW: the next version of this document expands on the above by
adding:

	     The intention
             behind "permanent and readily available" is that a document
             can reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable
             long after IANA assignment of the requested value.
             Publication of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this
             requirement, but Specification Required is intended to also
             cover the case of a document published outside of the RFC
             path. For RFC publication, the normal RFC review process is
             expected to provide the necessary review for
             interoperability, though the Designated Expert may be a
             particularly well-qualified person to perform such a
             review.


> 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.

Correct. We can't know in advance which documents (that have already
been pubished somehow) meet the test, so some common sense is
needed. If a document is already published somewhere, and it is clear
that the publication is permanent, there is really no need to also
have a copy available elsewhere. It would be OK to do so, but it
should not be required.

> 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).

I'm not opposed to this, but I also think we need to remember that the
IETF is not the only ogranization capable of publishing documents
"permanently". And we should only do this if we are worried that a
particular document is important and might "go away" at some point in
the future. Is the document in question of this type?

Thomas