Re: Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urlreg-noreg-00.txt

I have made a concrete proposal in another context, which may be useful in
addressing the concerns raised by the following email exchange:

>Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:23:43 -0800
>From: "Yaron Goland" <[email protected]>
>Subject: RE: Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urlreg-noreg-00.txt
>
>I understand but we can't have a situation where a small unelected largely
>unaccountable group of people unilaterally decide what is and is not
>allowable. It violates the entire IETF process. There must be an appeal
>process. I think the "appeal" process should be the existence of a permanent
>mailing list. Anyone who is interested in URIs can join that mailing list.
>If the advisory panel decides to reject a URI then a notice will be posted
>to the mailing list and those who are interested can discuss it.
>
>	Yaron
>
>> From:	Larry Masinter [SMTP:[email protected]]
>> Sent:	Tuesday, November 18, 1997 10:42 PM
>> Subject:	Re: Fw: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-urlreg-noreg-00.txt
>> 
>> There are no standing working groups. (I know HTTP has seemed that
>> way, but we're going to close up shop soon, I hope). The URL
>> registration mechanism has to outlive any working group.
>> 
>> So there's no group to send to. That's the whole point: what's a process
>> for registration of URLs that doesn't require the entire IESG to vote?
>> 
>>Larry

The process that I am advocating (see draft-ietf-svrloc-service-scheme-04.txt)
for use in vetting service templates is that the Apps ADs name a committee
which has oversight over new material.  The new material (which are specific
service types under the service scheme) are submitted as internet-drafts and
discussed on a mailing list, which is archived and remains open after the
WG terminates.  Oversight is possible since the Apps ADs can always replace
the committee.

The community is invited to participate, but they have only advisory power.
The committee may decide to either accept a proposal, or request changes.
Once they accept the proposal, it is submitted for on-line archiving by the
IANA.  A decision must be reached within 3 months or the default is that
the committee accepts the proposal.  This prevents delays!

I passed this proposal by Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds.  They commented that
they wanted the committee to have a chairman who would represent the consensus
and be the sole person who could file.  (This proposal will be reflected in
the forthcoming service-scheme-05 draft.

I am not sure whether this process will work well for URL schemes, but I think
it appropriate for service templates, which are 'versioned' so they don't have
to be absolutely complete initially.  The idea is to allow review, but not
require the weight of the standards process for registering new service types.
So, this model may be more appropriate to individual protocol 'extension'
efforts (such as datasets in ACAP, new options in DHCP, etc.)

Erik Guttman