Now I get it. Let me put it this way: we can create a protocol parameters space and ask IANA to create a registry full of opaque strings that happen to look like DNS names. Collisions are avoided because IANA manages these opaque strings that look like DNS names. Or, we can use DNS names and ask IANA to do their day job of ensuring that DNS names are unique, which they are.
Therefore, simply saying MRCPv2 will use reverse DNS names is sufficient to ensure a unique vendor name space. If there is a collision, we can let ICANN run the full domain name dispute resolution process. No need to get the IESG or an IETF expert involved. I vote to simply use reverse DNS names. On Oct 31, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Dan Burnett wrote: > Since we are down to only this one comment we can just top-reply :) > > The reason we are using this syntactic structure is because that is what > implementers of MRCPv1 are already used to. It is a convenient way to > distinguish among different vendors' parameters. > > However, the registry is to ensure there are no conflicts. Merely > recommending that vendors use a particular syntax does not ensure that they > will do so. A (public) registry does, at least insofar as making it public > when they violate the recommendation. > > -- dan > > > On Oct 31, 2011, at 4:54 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote: > >> Hi Dan. >> >> First, I believe I agree with all your previous comments. Thanks for >> addressing it. >> >> Now, back to this comment related to the IANA registration. See below. >> >> On 31/10/2011 2:20, Dan Burnett wrote: >>> I have removed all but one of your comments below. This comment had >>> not yet been addressed. With this reply I believe I have addressed >>> all of your comments. If you find that I have missed one please let >>> me know. >>> >>> -- dan >>> >>> On May 3, 2011, at 2:39 AM, Miguel A. Garcia wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> - Section 13.1.6 describes a mechanism where vendor-specific >>>> extensions use the reverse DNS mechanism, for example., >>>> "com.example.foo". Then, if the vendor-specific extension is >>>> connected to DNS to avoid clashes in names, why is there a need for >>>> an expert review policy prior to its registration? I see a >>>> contradiction in having a self-managing registry by avoiding >>>> clashes due to the connection to DNS, and then having anything else >>>> than a volunteer registry. >>>> >>> >>> In the next draft I will replace "Expert Review" with "First Come >>> First Served". >> >> This does not solve my concern. My concerns is why do you need at the same >> time: >> >> a) a self-managed registry, by linking reversed DNS names to features >> >> b) an IANA-controlled registry. >> >> There is a redundancy here. The goal of both is to avoid clashes of >> different features with the same name. If you need an IANA registry, then >> features do not need to be linked with their DNS names. If you need a >> reversed DNS names for the features, then their names are self-managed and >> need not be maintained by IANA. >> >> So, I still do not understand what you are trying to achieve. >> >> BR, >> >> Miguel >> >> >> >> -- >> Miguel A. Garcia >> +34-91-339-3608 >> Ericsson Spain >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
