Hi Eric:
Although this is a laudable effort, you won't get the expected results.
First, because the registry does not require a specification. The policy
(last thing we heard) is First Come First Served, and does not require a
specification.
Second, a publicly available specification is something that companies
won't do if they don't want to disclose their own extensions. Instead,
they will simply create extensions identified by their DNS names, and
they won't need the IANA registration.
So, I am even more confused than before. If you want to push companies to
public their specifications, they are not going to do it because you say
it in a standards document. IANA won't help you.
/Miguel
On 31/10/2011 14:46, Eric Burger wrote:
Miguel - One thing I would like to be clear on. We do want a registry
to encourage interoperability. By saying "use reverse DNS names" I do
not mean "don't have a registry." Using reverse DNS names is a
sufficient mechanism for avoiding naming collisions in the header
space. However, avoiding collisions does not mean we foster
interoperability.
The reason we want a registry is we want to encourage developers of
proprietary extension to document them. By having some documentation
out there, the hope is people will learn from each other and
hopefully, if something sticks, we can later do some standards track
work.
We did not mandate registration of an extension to use it. There is no
protocol police, so there is no point mandating something that one
cannot test. Using reverse DNS name space does give us a high
probability of non-collisiion.
Likewise, we did not say, "Developers MAY register proprietary
headers." That gives people the easy out, and then we get no
documentation benefits of the registry.
One thing I would offer to additionally lower the bar on registration
with the goal of improving registrations is to drop the requirement
that the documentation for the header be published as an RFC. However,
I would leave that determination up to the IESG.
Does this work for you? -- - Eric
On Oct 31, 2011, at 8:18 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
Now I get it.
Let me put it this way: we can create a protocol parameters space
and ask IANA to create a registry full of opaque strings that happen
to look like DNS names. Collisions are avoided because IANA manages
these opaque strings that look like DNS names. Or, we can use DNS
names and ask IANA to do their day job of ensuring that DNS names
are unique, which they are.
Therefore, simply saying MRCPv2 will use reverse DNS names is
sufficient to ensure a unique vendor name space. If there is a
collision, we can let ICANN run the full domain name dispute
resolution process. No need to get the IESG or an IETF expert
involved.
I vote to simply use reverse DNS names.
On Oct 31, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Dan Burnett wrote:
Since we are down to only this one comment we can just top-reply
:)
The reason we are using this syntactic structure is because that
is what implementers of MRCPv1 are already used to. It is a
convenient way to distinguish among different vendors'
parameters.
However, the registry is to ensure there are no conflicts. Merely
recommending that vendors use a particular syntax does not ensure
that they will do so. A (public) registry does, at least insofar
as making it public when they violate the recommendation.
-- dan
On Oct 31, 2011, at 4:54 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
Hi Dan.
First, I believe I agree with all your previous comments. Thanks
for addressing it.
Now, back to this comment related to the IANA registration. See
below.
On 31/10/2011 2:20, Dan Burnett wrote:
I have removed all but one of your comments below. This
comment had not yet been addressed. With this reply I believe
I have addressed all of your comments. If you find that I
have missed one please let me know.
-- dan
On May 3, 2011, at 2:39 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
- Section 13.1.6 describes a mechanism where
vendor-specific extensions use the reverse DNS mechanism,
for example., "com.example.foo". Then, if the
vendor-specific extension is connected to DNS to avoid
clashes in names, why is there a need for an expert review
policy prior to its registration? I see a contradiction in
having a self-managing registry by avoiding clashes due to
the connection to DNS, and then having anything else than a
volunteer registry.
In the next draft I will replace "Expert Review" with "First
Come First Served".
This does not solve my concern. My concerns is why do you need
at the same time:
a) a self-managed registry, by linking reversed DNS names to
features
b) an IANA-controlled registry.
There is a redundancy here. The goal of both is to avoid clashes
of different features with the same name. If you need an IANA
registry, then features do not need to be linked with their DNS
names. If you need a reversed DNS names for the features, then
their names are self-managed and need not be maintained by
IANA.
So, I still do not understand what you are trying to achieve.
BR,
Miguel
-- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
