Subject: [weirds] IANA registry for JSON response values

From: Andy Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 11:44:21 +0000

All,

As work begins on the next revision of draft-ietf-weirds-json-response,
I'd like opinions on an item that was mentioned in a thread a month ago.

The current draft lists in the appendixes suggested values for status,
event actions, variant relations, and roles. Should these be more
formalized into an IANA registry so that clients can have a better
understanding of their meaning and to allow an easy mechanism to add to
the list of values?

And if so, what type of IANA registry would be appropriate? Would Expert
Review to avoid redundant registrations and keep to other similar
guidelines be good enough, or would we want to require publication of a
specification, publication of an RFC, etc..?

-andy

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 11:06:39 -0700

> understanding of their meaning and to allow an easy mechanism to add to

Good question.

> specification, publication of an RFC, etc..?

Whatever we choose, we will be expected to justify our choice here,
especially if it's one of the more strict levels like IETF Review, etc.
There are a lot of specs that have in the past chosen the more strict ones
out of fear of things that never really materialized, and the IESG is
hoping to limit that as much as possible going forward.

-MSK