Subject: [apps-discuss] Feeling kind of confused about draft-merrick-jms-uri-12

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:01:47 -0800

I was asked to review it.  My review was quite negative, challenging
the notion that a URI was even appropriate for this space, and
pointing out some fairly serious problems with the text.  I'd have
expected at least another draft.  Today, the IESG announces that that
draft, with one small change, is being published as an Informational
RFC.

So, what is the purpose of doing apps-area reviews, given that this
one produced no observable effects?

 -Tim

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:15:34 +1100

It's a provisional registration, and the bar for that is pretty low:
  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-3

Cheers,

On 27/01/2011, at 12:01 PM, Tim Bray wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 21:30:56 -0800

Hi Tim,
>draft, with one small change, is being published as an Informational

According to the document write-up:

   "The document had 2 reviews from the Apps Review team
    and most of the comments were addressed, although reviewers
    have disagreed with authors on some philosophical points.
    The document was also discussed on the [email-masked]
    mailing list."

Which points in the review ( 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02090.html 
) were considered as philosophical points?

>one produced no observable effects?

I'll leave it to the Application Area Directors to address that question.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:20:32 -0500

--On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 21:30 -0800 S Moonesamy
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> draft, with one small change, is being published as an
>> Informational RFC.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg0
> 2090.html ) were considered as philosophical points?
> 
>> So, what is the purpose of doing apps-area reviews, given
>> that this one produced no observable effects?
> 

Remember too that, as Mark has already pointed out in a
different way, the main point of a provisional registration is
to lower the odds that the same protocol identifier string will
be used to designate two different protocols. 

I am not advising this in any way and I personally don't think
it would be worth the effort, but, in the interest of procedural
knowledge and consistency, RFC 2026 does give anyone who feels
strongly about this decision the right to appeal it.

    john

---

From: Mark Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:20:45 -0500

>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-3

Agreed.  The request was initially for permanent registration, but
feedback here forced a change to provisional;

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-merrick-jms-uri-07

Mark.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:14:32 +0300

Tim Bray wrote:

>pointing out some fairly serious problems with the text.
>
Ok, I think there were some process failures on my side. I was keen to 
get this document finished before my AD term ends at the beginning of 
April, version -11 of the document was posted close to the IESG telechat 
date and I didn't follow up on your detailed comments. I did read your 
comments and from a quick look it seemed that most of your minor issues 
were addressed, while I didn't think your major issue were blocking 
publication. So my apologies for not communicating anything back to you.

I have replied to your original review and I hope you find my answers 
satisfactory.

Now, commenting on some specific issues:

>I'd have expected at least another draft.
>
I believe -11 was posted to address some of your concerns. My reading of 
changes in draft-merrick-jms-uri-11.txt is that editors addressed pretty 
much all your minor issues and nits. I apologize again for not replying 
to your major issues and not insisting that editors do, but I hope my 
replies in additional message explain why I thought that these issues 
are not worth blocking the document for.

Having said that, if you think some specific editorial changes can 
improve the document, I would be very interested to hear and apply them 
in AUTH48. If the changes are sufficiently major, I will ask IESG and 
the community to verify that they are acceptable.

>Today, the IESG announces that that
There was lack of acknowledgment of your review from my side, but in 
general I don't think I agree with your statement.

My understanding of how Apps Review Team should work is that it provides 
additional reviews and information to Applications AD (and the rest of 
IESG) about suitability of publications and quality of documents. This 
is similar to SecDir (Security Area reviews) and Gen-Art (General Area 
reviews). None of them are supposed to be treated more than general IETF 
LC comments, although in practice ADs of relevant areas are actually 
paying much more attention to them.

So, your review was treated as one input regarding the document. This 
document was also reviewed by the Designated Expert for URI 
registrations (Graham Klyne) and Mark Nottingham (another Apps Review 
Team review). While they clearly indicated that the document is not 
ready for PS, I got impression that they thought that the publication as 
Informational with Provisional URI registration is quite acceptable.

Best Regards,
Alexey

-- 
IETF Application Area Director, <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html>
Internet Messaging Team Lead, <http://www.isode.com>
JID: same as my email address