Hello Pete,
No worries about the delay as there was IETF meeting to deal with.
I don't think the fact that public and private packages have different
ranges has been glossed over. This has been utilised by different
registrations. You can see from the current registrations that private
companies i.e. Ericsson, Nokia have registered packages in the "private"
space.
I'm hesitant to mandate that unless the document is "publicly" available
then the package must be registered in the "private" space. This is
really due to the history of the protocol and the knowledge that the
wording was like it was to allow membership based SDOs to have a
different status from private companies. For instance if the ITU hadn't
made Recommendations publicly available we'd now be proposing that their
packages become "private" which I sure would have raised a few eye brows.
So from my perspective I would prefer to leave the current text because
this aspect of public vs private and the availability of packages hasn't
caused us trouble since the inception of the registry. What has caused
trouble is the quality of the packages and in part that's what the draft
is trying to address.
Regards, Christian
McCann Peter-A001034 wrote:
Hi, Christian,
Sorry for the delay in responding.
I am happy to let the IESG make a decision on whether or not
to make a distinction for "recognized" SDOs, and for availability
of specification. I just wanted to make one point that may have
been glossed over: there is a distinction made between "public"
packages and "private" packages; they have different number spaces
for the binary ID. Would it be too much to ask that if a specification
is not publicly available at a stable URL, then the package must
be registered in the "private" space?
-Pete
Christian Groves wrote:
Hello Peter,
Please see my comments below, marked [CNG].
Regards, Christian
McCann Peter-A001034 wrote:
Hi, Christian,
I am fine on your and Cullen's explanation on the major issue.
It sounds like expert review is the right policy here. By choosing
an expert closely affiliated with the ITU study group I guess we are
ceding some of the change control to them, which matches what has
been happening with the rest of the H.248 standards.
[CNG] I don't see the expert issue is one of affiliation or control
it just should be someone who is activity following or contributing
to the work. I would expect that that person would have to follow
both the IETF and the ITU.
On the question of "recognized standards organization", I really
wonder if we can do without this distinction. It seems like the
rules given in the draft mainly allow shorter codes to be registered
by these organizations. Would it really harm the world for an
individual to register a package with a short name? I can imagine
that some packages may become important even when not developed by a
"recognized standards organization". Given the review that needs to
take place, we could easily guard against squatting or spamming
behaviors.
[CNG] I've addressed this point more in response to Cullen email. The
original intention behind the split registry was that packages
defined by SDOs would be perceived differently to private packages.
On the question of publicly available specifications, personally I
would like to see this required of public packages. I don't think
it's fair for someone to use the IETF process for registering such a
package without disclosing enough information for anyone to produce
an interoperable implementation. The situation with H.248 right now
is that I can go to the ITU website and download a copy, which I
think removed some of the qualms IETF may have had about turning
over change control from MEGACO to ITU. I wouldn't want to see
H.248 turned into a proprietary protocol through the extension
mechanisms.
[CNG] We've had the distinction between public and private packages
since the first Megaco/H.248 RFC/Recommendation and haven't had any
issues with this aspect thus far. I personally think that standards
should be made available to everyone but the reality is that there
are SDOs/Fora where documents are only available to members. I think
this availability is a general issue and not just applicable the
Megaco/H.248 work.
I think that it is a good thing that they may want to use
Megaco/H.248, if they want to add packages in addition to what is
already defined then for me this is OK. If those packages are
applicable to the wider community then this is a comment that I think
the IESG appointed expert can make and encourage the organisation to
make it more widely available. This has occurred with 3GPP where they
have proposed a 3GPP specific function but based on feedback have let
the ITU produce a more general widely available solution. Another
case was the MSF which was looking at standardising their own
packages which would have been made available only to there members.
On review and feedback it was pointed out that the packages in
instances were incorrect and in other instances the packages were
incorporated into ITU/ETSI documents. So in short, to this date we
haven't had the "proprietary protocol"
issue and I don't think that the people/companies currently involved
in the Megaco/H.248 standard would desire that this would happen.
-Pete
Christian Groves wrote:
Hello Peter and Cullen,
Peter, thanks for the comments. With regards to the major issue I
would agree with Cullen's comments. In addition it's important to
point out that the draft largely documents the process as it being
implemented. The written description (pre this draft) doesn't
actually match what is occurring. The draft also tries to set some
review guidelines which again weren't documented. We have
previously in the Megaco/H.248 work had cases where packages have
been registered but basic things were missing or not well explained
which have caused issues. By describing a review path we hope to
pick these issues up before a package is fully registered.
Please see my comments below on the other issues marked [CNG]
Once we resolve the "recognised standards organisation" issue i'll
provide an updated draft.
Regards, Christian
Cullen Jennings wrote:
Christian, could you take a look at the minor issues & nits and
submit a draft to resolve theses - if some of them don't need to be
changed, just sort that on this email thread.
Peter, on the topic of the Major issue...
The existing procedures require the review to happen at IETF.
Almost all the work on this is actually happening at ITU right now
so we are trying to make it easier for the ITU folks get the
approvals they need done. We will select an expert reviewer that
is closely involved with the ITU folks working on this as they are
much more aware of all the ongoing work is and can catch
conflicts, duplicated efforts etc.
This should make it easier to get things approved than the current
process while at the same time helping improve the actual quality
of the review.
Hope that helps.
Cullen
On Feb 23, 2009, at 11:50 AM, McCann Peter-A001034 wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
comments you may receive.
Document: draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-02
Reviewer: Peter J. McCann
Review Date: 23 February 2009
IETF LC End Date: 23 February 2009
IESG Telechat date: unknown
Summary: Ready with nits, if the IESG wants to change the IANA
considerations for H.248.
Major issues:
This document inserts an expert review procedure in the allocation
policy for new H.248 packages/error codes/service change/profiles.
This is probably a good thing but I have not been following the
history of the H.248 effort so I'm not aware of any problems that
have occurred under the existing allocation policies. The IESG
should weigh carefully whether the allocation policy really needs
changing.
Minor issues:
In a couple of places the document gives special treatment to
"recognized standards bodies." How does a standards body become
"recognized" by the IETF? Should we specify that a liaison
relationship must be in place?
[CNG] Yes it may be good to add which bodies are recognized. Given
that H.248/Megaco was developed jointly the people who came mainly
from IETF thought "IETF Liaison relationship" and those from the ITU
probably thought "Recognised Standards Development Organisation". I
had a quick look at the IETF website and found:
http://www.ietf.org/liaisonActivities.html is this the list of
bodies who the IETF has a liaison relationship with?
The ITU-T also maintains a list of qualified Forums/Consortiums
(http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/lists/qualified.aspx#forums). This seems
to be a more comprehensive list of organisations (i.e. it includes
national bodies). Could I had a pointer to this list in the draft?
Section 4.2 states that a specification is required for review by
the designated expert, but it seems to allow that this
specification isn't publicly available. Should there be a
requirement at least for public packages that the specification
be public?
[CNG] I think this is really dependent on the rules of the standards
organisation. The IETF is good that all documents are public but
this doesn't apply to organisations such a MSF where the documents
are available to the members but not the general public. So I don't
think the draft can mandate that the package should be publicly
available.
Nits/editorial comments:
Section 1:
OLD:
Given this situation, it is appropriate that the H.248/Package
Package definition NEW:
Given this situation, it is appropriate that the H.248/Package
definition
[CNG] OK
Section 4.2:
OLD:
2) The package requester shall provide a contact name, email and
postal addresses for that contact shall be specified.
NEW:
2) The package requester shall provide a contact name, and an
email and postal address for that contact shall be specified.
[CNG] OK
OLD:
provided available for review
NEW:
provided and available for review
[CNG] OK
OLD:
5) Package names are allocated on a first come-first served if
all other conditions are met. NEW:
5) Package names are allocated on a first come-first served
basis
if all
other conditions are met.
[CNG] OK
Section 5.1:
OLD:
shall forward to received information
NEW:
shall forward the received information
[CNG] OK
Section 5.2:
OLD:
On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall
forward to received information (i.e. the Error Code text
(Specification required) to the IESG appointed expert for review
(See section 4.3). NEW: On the request for an Error Code
registration, the IANA shall forward the received information
(i.e. the Error Code text and required specification) to the
IESG appointed expert for review (See section 4.3). [CNG] OK
Section 5.3:
OLD:
On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall
forward to received information (i.e. the Service Change Reason
text (Specification required) to the IESG appointed expert for
review (See section 4.4). NEW:
On the request for an Service Change Reason registration, the
IANA shall forward the received information (i.e. the Service
Change Reason text and required specification) to the IESG
appointed expert for review (See section 4.4).
[CNG] OK
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
