[urn] Re: improved management of registration requests

Hello Peter, others,

Many thanks to you and the review team for all your great work, 
including this proposal.

On 2025-02-05 07:39, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> This message is mostly for discussion among the expert review team, but 
> I'm sending it to the public list for greater transparency.
> 
> At times, we (mostly I as the team lead) have forgotten to take action 
> on registration requests, as just happened with the `c2pa` namespace. 
> This is not the quality of service we owe to the community.

This is a very laudable sentiment, and whatever can be done to improve 
things is a move in the right direction. However, we should be careful 
to not create the wrong expectations. All reviewers are volunteers, and 
there are many other ways things can go wrong. I think we should be 
clear that submitters should just send another mail if they don't hear 
back for a long time.

BTW, the Media (sub)Type registration experts get reminders from IANA 
when they don't respond to requests. IANA also gives the experts 
deadlines for their responses. Maybe that's also something that could be 
considered here. [I'd note that there are way more media subtype 
requests than urn scheme requests, while the later are on average quite 
a bit more elaborate. So I think the focus below on github for tweaking 
proposals is quite appropriate.]

Regards,   Martin.


> A few years ago I asked IANA whether they plan to offer infrastructure 
> so that expert review teams can better manage registration requests. 
> They had no such plans at the time, but we could pursue the relevant 
> tools independently. The path I have in mind is that we could set up a 
> GitHub repository in conformance with RFC 8874 and RFC 8875 (although 
> this group is no longer an official IETF Working Group, because it grew 
> out of the URN WG the guidance specified in those documents would still 
> seem relevant).
> 
> Here is my perspective:
> 
> (1) we would use such a repository primarily for issue tracking
> 
> (2) discussion of substantive matters regarding registration requests 
> would still happen on this list
> 
> (3) we might want to keep registration requests under source control, 
> for several reasons:
> 
> (a) this might make it easier to work with (some) registrants, 
> especially regarding less than substantive matters
> 
> (b) this might make it easier to work on version 2+ of namespace 
> registrations
> 
> (c) I usually reformat approved registration requests before final 
> submission to IANA (for instance to keep line lengths to 72 characters 
> and to ensure consistency across registrations); it would be better if 
> these changes, though relatively minor, were done in the open
> 
> (d) source control is good :-)
> 
> I'm curious what other expert review team members, and community members 
> in general, think of this idea.
> 
> Peter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> urn mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

_______________________________________________
urn mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]