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

You raise two interesting questions here.

On the first, if I am understanding you, I think you are absolutely 
correct.  We should specifically require that any LFB registration 
have a definition in XML in accordance with the model 
requirements.  That means it has to match the XML schema, and it has 
to match the non-schema requirements for being a valid LFB Class 
definition.  (We did not capture all the documented constraints in 
the XML Schema.)
We can and should add words to that effect.

That does raise the question of whether there needs to be a reviewer 
to check such things.  And if there is a reviewer, is the reviewer 
checking just the formalities, or more than that?

With regard to the names, I rather like the idea of requiring that 
names in the non-RFC section start with a specific sequence.  I am 
not sure I like X-, since people tend to think that they can make up 
and use any X- name (whether they can or not.) prefixes that occur to 
be are VND-, PRV-, or FCFS-.  Anyone have ideas / preferences?

Thank you,
Joel M. Halpern

At 03:48 AM 10/12/2006, tom.petch wrote:
>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