Re: INFO Framework: IANA Registry

Agreed
 
I do not see separate mileage in separate vendor trees. They only work
to me if we can grandfather some package off another package.
 
Keith


________________________________

	From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Eric Burger
	Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 1:53 AM
	To: Paul Kyzivat
	Cc: SIP List
	Subject: Re: [Sip] INFO Framework: IANA Registry
	
	
	The nightmare is the proliferation of X-mumble (e-mail),
P-mumble (SIP), g.mumble, etc., especially when the experiment becomes
standard. 
	
	
	I'd much rather have a registration that looks like:
	
	
	Package Name     Contact                            Reference
	keypress         SIP Work Group <[email protected]>      RFCYYYY
	coolpackage      Proprietary Co <[email protected]>   none
	
	
	(where RFCYYYY is some standards track RFC)
	
	
	
	
	
	
	And then, someday we get
	
	
	
	coolpackage      Proprietary Co <[email protected]>   RFCZZZZ
	
	
	(where RFCZZZZ is some Informational RFC or link to a stable
document)
	
	
	
	
	The multiple tree way gives us X-coolpackage at best and
com.example.coolpackage at worst, which might make foobar.com not want
to advertise example.com.  Plus the package name give us a hint to what
it does...
	
	
	
	
	On Nov 19, 2008, at 7:16 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
	
	

		
		
		Eric Burger wrote:
		
		

			We can also have two trees, one Specification
Required and one Private. This has been proven to be an interoperability
and marketing nightmare, but I will put it out there for completeness.
			

		
		Can you say more? Why would it be more of a nightmare
than FCFS?
		
		

			I would offer we go with First Come First
Served.  We can have a field for a reference, giving us the best of the
specification required (you can look up what a published specification
is) and Private (if you are creating a private Info Package, you do not
have to specify anything other than the package name).
			

			Please Vote:
			

			[ ] First Come First Served with pointer to
optional specification
			

			[ ] First Come First Served
			

			[ ] Specification Required
			

			[ ] Expert Review
			

			[X] Two trees: Specification Required and
Private
			

		
		IMO this is better than FCFS with pointer because it
gives a higher degree of legitimacy to those with specifications, which
provides an incentive to get that.
		
		But I will make FCFS w/opt spec my 2nd choice.
		
		Thanks,
		Paul

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip