Subject: IPP> MOD - Results of IANA review of IANA Considerations section

From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 17:11:24 PDT

I had sent to Jon Sections 6 and 12 that Scott posted on Tuesday 
(version 10) of the Model document.  We have completed the review
by IANA of the IANA Considerations as requested by Keith.

Tom

>X-Sender: hastings@garfield
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
>Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 13:42:01 -0700
>To: Jon Postel <[email-masked]>
>From: Tom Hastings <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: Minor questions on the IPP IANA Considerations and
>  registration
>Cc: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>, cmanros, hastings
>
>Jon,
>
>Thanks for your replies to my questions and your review of the revised
>IPP Model and Semantics specifications:
>
>  revised Section 6 "IANA Considerations (registered and private extensions)"
>  new Section 12 "Formats for IPP Registration Proposals"
>
>that you requested to be added.
>
>The WG was pleased with your review and comments.  We have added the
>single sentence as you suggested to the beginning of Section 12:
>
>  In order to propose an IPP extension for registration, the proposer must
>  submit an application to IANA by email to [email-masked]" or by filling out 
>  the appropriate form on the IANA web pages (http://www.iana.org).
>
>I believe that together we have completed Keith Moore's request that IANA
>review Section 6.
>
>The WG also appreciates the flexibility that you offerred in stream-lining
>the procedures for publishing approved registrations with IANA.
>
>Thanks,
>Tom Hastings
>for the IPP WG
>
>
>
>At 21:45 6/23/98 PDT, Jon Postel wrote:
>>
>>Tom:
>>
>>Sorry for the delay, and i do appreciate your persistance.  Sorry i
>>couldn't take your call today (i was on the line with a government
>>minister in Australia).  Also, i was sick on Sunday and have been
>>operating a about 1/2 effectiveness this week.  Enough of my troubles.
>>
>>I've now reviewed your proposed sections 6 and 12 and they look very
>>good.
>>
>>Some points you asked about:
>>
>>	1. The email address "[email-masked]" -- yes, that is the
>>	correct address to use.
>>
>>	2. A form filling way to make applications -- yes, we can set
>>	that up with your help and advice.
>>
>>	3. Applications by either email or web forms -- yes, we can
>>	accept either, no need to limit it to one or the other.
>>
>>	4. Mentioning the forms method in the specification -- hmm, i
>>	guess that should be mentioned in the new section 12.  The new
>>	section 12 probably need a bit more of an introduction, saying
>>	explicity that an application should be submitted to the IANA
>>	by email to "[email-masked]" or by filling out a form on the
>>	IANA web pages, even if that is a bit redundant with section 6.
>
>So we've added the following to the beginning of Section 12:
>
>  In order to propose an IPP extension for registration, the proposer must
>  submit an application to IANA by email to [email-masked]" or by filling out 
>  the appropriate form on the IANA web pages (http://www.iana.org).
>
>>
>>	5. Additional questions or prompting with the forms -- hmm,
>>	i've got mixed feelings about this.  We have a lot of cases of
>>	clueless newbys filling in forms for they know not what just
>>	because it was there.  Many of these we catch because of
>>	inconsistencies in the information or the kind of answer given
>>	for a question just doesn't make sense.  If we give a lot of
>>	help it may be hard to spot this kind of mis-application.  On
>>	the other have we do want to make it easy for the intended
>>	users to get their registrations.  If you think it is a good
>>	idea we can work together to provide it.
>
>I'll ask the WG.  It may be simpler to make the submitter copy the
>format of the appropriate section from the Model document providing 
>the same kind of information.  Only after experience, if we get some
>incompleted proposals, might we need to add more questions to the
>IANA registration submission UI for IPP.  Lets wait and see.
>
>>
>>	6. The distinction between the PWG and the IPP WG was not as
>>	clear to me before as it is now.  I think we can have a pretty
>>	flexible arrangement so that reguests for assignments
>>	originating in the PWG can be handled with a minimum of fuss.
>>	Suppose the PWG maintained on it's server a copy of the
>>	...iana/assignments/ipp/... directory and file structure.  And
>>	suppose that when a PWG member wanted an assignment, through
>>	some process (unknown to the IANA) the result was that a message
>>	from the designated expert arrived in the IANA mailbox
>>	containing an exactly correct application preapproved by the
>>	designated expert with the comment that all IANA had to do was
>>	copy such and such files from the pwg.org machine to the
>>	iana.org machine to complete the assignment.  The IANA would
>>	consider this very helpful.  [By the way, loading the URL
>>	http://www.pwg.org/ just failed.]
>
>Speaking for our WG and the PWG this flexibility looks good for us
>and will make it easier on IANA as well.  Thank you.
>
>The PWG server has been down since Tuesday.  However, it has been
>remarkedly available during the past four years. 
>
>>
>>	7. I still think it makes sense for IANA to hold the registry
>>	in principle, though as i just said above we can be very
>>	flexible in the practice.  The main reason in favor of the IANA
>>	involvement is the long term survial.  The IANA is now the key
>>	contact for so many different kinds of parameters, codes,
>>	types, and so on that it can't be allowed to fail.  Even if the
>>	current people for some reason were unable to continue, the
>>	IANA as a service would have to be reinstantiated.
>
>Sounds right to me too.
>
>>
>>	8. The future of the IANA -- The IANA as an organization is a
>>	bit tied up in the ongoing discussion of how to evolve domain
>>	names.  I think the organization part (not the the domain
>>	names) can be resolved in a couple of months and that a new
>>	not-for-profit corporation can be in place to provide the
>>	current service before the existing funding arrangements run
>>	out.  I don't think that funding the new organization will be a
>>	major problem but there is some work to be done to make the
>>	arrangements.
>>
>>I hope this covers the questions you've got. If not give me a call on
>>wednesday morning.
>
>Yes, you've answered the questions and provided the review.
>Thanks again,
>
>Tom Hastings
>>
>>--jon.
>>
>>
>>
>
>