Download
1 / 5
50 likes | 156 Views
Registry Discussion. Henk Uijterwaal. Background. Metrics registry introduced in RFC4148 Little use over the years It took 8 months for somebody to notice a typo in an update. Parser would have choked on it Problem: only the metrics are registered, not the parameters for the metrics
E N D
Registry Discussion HenkUijterwaal
Background • Metrics registry introduced in RFC4148 • Little use over the years • It took 8 months for somebody to notice a typo in an update. Parser would have choked on it • Problem: only the metrics are registered, not the parameters for the metrics • Maintaining the registry does require work from document authors and IANA
Question • What to do next? • Withdraw the current registry, don’t replace it • Expand the current registry to something that is useful • Drop the current registry, replace by something that is considered useful
Things to consider • Is there a need for a registry? • What should be in the registry? • Metrics • Parameters • Language for the registry? • SMIv2? Other? • Consult with WG’s who use the registry? • Which ones?
Next steps • 2 proposals presented today • Discussion here and on the list • Decision before Beijing (11/2010) • Implement decision • If there is a need for an update or new registry: assemble team in Beijing
