Hi,
The process as defined by the current CRI draft aims to have "special
requests" i.e. expert review to be requested early via the
core-parameters mailing list. If that's not done, then it defaults to an
IANA assigment as indicated by the new registry text:
> If that is not the case, IANA will assign a value autonomously.
So the intent looks to me at least that a registrant for a scheme need
not do anything special, nor decide between the two review types --
that's already decided by not mailing to the core-parameters list
basically. Also, the issue here is that to know how to make that
decision, the registrant needs to already know about the CRI procedure,
maybe learn about CRIs too, which I think was not the intention of the
new procedure.
Instead of having to indicate a range, the default registration text
(for the majority of registrants I suspect) could be like one of the below:
CRI Scheme Number: default
CRI Scheme Number: defined by IANA
CRI Scheme Number: no special requirements
CRI Scheme Number: -
I understand we need a registration request to fill in 'something' for
every field of the registry entry, for the reasons Amanda mentioned.
However it should be easy to express 'let IANA decide' (like above)
without needing to know about CRI or the details of this review process.
Maybe the new text for the registry could suggest a value to request
(e.g. "default" ?) for a requester not knowing what CRI is or how CRI
gets reviewed/allocated.
thanks
Esko
On 7/19/26 18:39, Amanda Baber via RT wrote:
Hi Michael,
CRI Scheme Number: TBA from the Expert Review range
CRI Scheme Number: TBA from the First Come First Served range
okay...
But, href-30 says:
| Identifier (URI) Schemes Registry may indicate that there are
| special requirements on the CRI scheme number to be assigned for
| the new URI Scheme.
| If that is not the case, IANA will assign a value autonomously.
As we *DO NOT* have special requirements, it would be fine:
If no requirement is specified in the registration, IANA will
autonomously assign a number in the range 1000 to 20000, inclusive,
that has not yet been used.
(As far as I know, we can not use the CRI in the core?rt= reply)
I might be misreading this, but if you mean (as href-30 seems to mean) that we
should take the absence of a CRI request as an indication that we should go
ahead and assign an FCFS number, there are two issues:
For us, if the IANA Considerations section doesn't mention the CRI field, we
have no way of knowing whether this was a deliberate omission, whether the
authors meant to request an Expert Review number but forgot to add it to the
section, or whether they simply weren't aware of the field. During these
pre-meeting reviews, we often send messages pointing out that a registry has a
new name or a new field.
The other issue is that without that field, the RFC Editor won't have a place
to record the number.
thanks,
Amanda
--
*IoTconsultancy.nl* | Email/Teams: [email protected] | +31 6
2385 8339_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
