Re: IETF ldapbis WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapbis-iana-04.txt

[Ryan Moats <rmoats@lemurnetworks.net>]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 01:44:05PM -0800, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
| At 10:19 AM 2001-11-29, Ryan Moats wrote:
| 
| >===Technical issues===
| >
| >1. Several searches on the ldapbis mailing archives failed to show any
| >discussion on the limits on protocol descriptors and option strings.
| >I for one am uncomfortable with applying such limits without more discussion.
| >Rather, once the requester has met the "SHOULD" consideration, I don't
| >think IANA should be given the right to arbitrarily refuse a request just
| >because of length. 
| 
| Well, I would argue that IANA should have the right to refuse
| a request solely the item is too long.  What this sentence does,
| is give the requester and the IANA guidance as to what lengths
| MAY be considered too long.

I disagree.  Assigning a "MAY" limit creates (to me) an arbitrary limit
in an unlimited field.  If IANA says "no you can't register that, its
too long" then what recourse does the register have?  If they've already
passed review, then why should IANA stop them?

| >2. In section 5.3, there a reference to a change control request.
| >It is not clear from the rest of the document what the process is for
| >the change control request triggering a specification update or IESG
| >asserting ownership. I think this needs to be addressed to provide some
| >guidance to requesters (both for initial requests and subsequent requests).
| 
| I think the last sentence of 5.3 needs to be replaced with:
|   For registrations owned by the IESG, the objections SHOULD
|   be addressed by initiating a request for Expert Review.      
| 
|   The form of these requests is ad hoc but MUST include the 
|   specific objections to be reviewed and SHOULD contain
|   (directly or by reference) materials supporting the
|   objections.
| 
| Does this address your concern(s)?

Partially.  In addition to the above, I got lost in the following scenario:
scenario:

Somebody registeres an "e-" or "x-" item, so its owned by the register.
Somebody else makes a change request on that item (this looks to be allowed)

Now what happens?  If the owner doesn't make the requested change, at what
point does/should IESG take ownership?

Ryan