Subject: Re: [mile] ROLIE Data Model Enumeration

From: "Takeshi Takahashi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 15:46:18 +0900

+1 to the proposal and to Panos's comment.

Thank you,
Take

From: mile [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Panos Kampanakis
(pkampana)
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 1:18 AM
To: Banghart, Stephen A. (Fed); [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mile] ROLIE Data Model Enumeration

Happy New Year to everyone! 

+1. I think registering formats will be challenging and could slow down
adopters.
I think it would be beneficial if the ROLIE draft included text for an
example representation in section 6.2.3 though. The IODEFv2 XML schema could
be one example. 

Panos

From: mile [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Banghart, Stephen A.
(Fed)
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 11:01 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [mile] ROLIE Data Model Enumeration

All,
 
The other issue discussed at the IETF 97 MILE meeting was the Enumeration
and Registration of Data Models.
 
Data model enumeration/registration would involve requiring extension
documents to register their supported data models for a given information
type with IANA.
 
Pros:
│       Provides one location that lists all officially registered data
formats.
Cons:
│       Requires document authors to choose (often arbitrarily!) and
register data format namespaces
│       Registered identifiers don't help implementations understand data
formats, and if chosen arbitrarily may not even help identify the format in
a way that is meaningful to clients.
│       Provides no additional automation support.
│       Increases work load on extension authors
│       Extensions must provide IANA considerations section that specifies
data model registration and perhaps an additional table for the data models.
│       Extensions must have a separate section describing the data model in
addition to the IANA consideration
 
Proposal:
                Do not require data format registration in extension drafts.
This does not preclude an extension from establishing a registry for
supported data models if needed. Extension specifications may additionally
discuss the data models intended to be used for a given information type. We
believe this provides for adequate coverage of the model namespaces to be
used in the extension specification, without requiring the extra burden of
dealing with IANA considerations for models.
 
Any feedback on this proposal? I personally feel like requiring registration
is not worth the price.
 
Thanks,
Stephen Banghart