Re: draft-ietf-forces-model-07 update

I would like to see tighter control specified in the IANA Considerations.

I see that section as the 'Data Definition' for the database that IANA is being
told to set up and so should be as specific as possible, in terms of the names
to be used by IANA and in constraints on what can be put there.

I note that the only requirement on a new LFB class is that it be documented,
not that it be documented in eg XML; and if XML, which version thereof?  Where
an RFC is required, will any do eg Information, with its low level of review or
should it be standards track (there have been on or two post-publication
disagreements over assignments that slipped through the individual submissions
track bypassing a WG and of course, the submission was purely on behalf of the
individual and not on behalf of the company whose name appears in his e-mail
address)?

On a semantic point, I think it wrong to allow a free-for-all with LFB Class
names, expecting this to lead to chaos and confusion; most registries
differentiate Standards Track approved names from not, eg by the presence of X-
(SMTP) or @ (SSH), and many impose a rudimentary structure (although I accept
that most name spaces are grossly over-structured).

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Deleganes, Ellen M" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 1:01 AM
Subject: draft-ietf-forces-model-07 update


The latest version of the ForCES Model draft is attached.

Regards,
Ellen Deleganes