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

The space of LFB Class names is essentially infinite, since those are 
arbitrary strings.  (I expect folks won't use more than 60 or so characters...)

The space of LFB Class identifiers is 32 bits (I keep wondering if we 
should have made it 16 bits) so it is plenty large.
I thought it would be simpler if RFC allocated values were separate 
from others, so I split the space.
After that, the question was the tradeoff between encouraging people 
to create definitions, and concern about overly similar 
definitions.  Given the need for definitions, I thought it made more 
sense to err on the permissive side and not require review.  However, 
there is the matter of formal correctness.  In the absence of a tool, 
we may need to require human review to confirm that the definitions 
are valid.  (i.e. limited expert review.)

Yours,
Joel

At 03:47 AM 10/16/2006, tom.petch wrote:
>RFC2434 specifes other options, inclduing Expert Review:-).
>
>I lack a sense of how big this LFB class namespace is initially and how big it
>might grow, which makes my suggestions a little vague; even an order of
>magnitude would help (and might provoke debate).  Also, I am unclear 
>where it is
>initially being populated from; this I-D just says documents..
>
>Tom Petch
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]>
>To: <[email protected]>
>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:42 PM
>Subject: 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