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 at garfield>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32)
>Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 13:42:01 -0700
>To: Jon Postel <postel at isi.edu>
>From: Tom Hastings <hastings at cp10.es.xerox.com>
>Subject: Re: Minor questions on the IPP IANA Considerations and
> registration
>Cc: Keith Moore <moore at cs.utk.edu>, 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 iana at iana.org" 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 "iana at iana.org" -- 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 "iana at iana.org" 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 iana at iana.org" 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.
>>>>>>>>