Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Extend the ability to publish Registries to IG/AB/TAG #972

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Extend the ability to publish Registries to IG/AB/TAG #972

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
0828866
Extend the ability to publish Registries to IG/AB/TAG
frivoal Jan 8, 2025
089f26d
Fix capitalization
frivoal Jan 9, 2025
7329d5c
improve phrasing
frivoal Jan 10, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
27 changes: 14 additions & 13 deletions index.bs
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -3015,14 +3015,14 @@ Types of Technical Reports</h3>

<dt>Registries
<dd>
[=Working Groups=] can also publish [=registries=]
[=Chartered groups|chartered=] and [=elected groups=] can also publish [=registries=]
frivoal marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
in order to document collections of values or other data.
A registry can be published either as a distinct [=registry report=],
or directly within a [=Recommendation Track=] document
as an [=embedded registry=].
[=registry definition|Defining a registry=] requires [=wide review=] and [=consensus=],
but once set up, changes to registry entries are lightweight
and can even be done without a [=Working Group=].
and can even be done without the initiating group's involvement.
See [[#registries]] for details.
</dl>

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -4702,15 +4702,15 @@ Registry Definitions</h4>
and which is responsible for evaluating whether such requests
satisfy the criteria defined in the [=registry definition=].

The [=custodian=] may be the [=Working Group=], the [=Team=], or a delegated entity.
The [=custodian=] may be the initiating [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected group=], the [=Team=], or a delegated entity.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we can simplify this to "[=group=]", no?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

[=group=] on its own links to a definition that also includes the AC. I don't think the AC should be in the business of publishing anything

The [=custodian=] for all [=registry tables=] in a single [=registry=]
<em class=rfc2119>should</em> generally be the same entity.

If the [=custodian=] of a [=registry table=]
ceases to exist or to operate as a custodian
(e.g., the relevant group is disbanded, or
the custodian is unresponsive to repeated attempts to make contact),
and the [=Working Group=] that owns the [=registry definition=]
and the [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected group=] that owns the [=registry definition=]
is itself <a href="#GeneralTermination">closed</a> or
unresponsive,
the [=Team=] <em class=rfc2119>should</em> propose replacing the [=custodian=],
Expand All @@ -4721,9 +4721,9 @@ Registry Definitions</h4>
<h4 id=reg-pub>
Publishing Registries</h4>

[=Registries=] can be published either
[=Registries=] can be published by [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected groups=] either
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we can just delete the "by" phrase, it's not adding anything.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To me, this seems like the place in the Process which establishes who can publish a Registry. The alternative is line 3018, but that feels more like a reference to something established elsewhere than the place that establishes it.

as a stand-alone [=technical report=] on the [=Registry Track=] called a <dfn>registry report</dfn>,
or incorporated as part of a [=Recommendation=] as an <dfn oldids="registry-section">embedded registry</dfn>.
or, in the case of [=Working Groups=], incorporated as part of a [=Recommendation=] as an <dfn oldids="registry-section">embedded registry</dfn>.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
or, in the case of [=Working Groups=], incorporated as part of a [=Recommendation=] as an <dfn oldids="registry-section">embedded registry</dfn>.
or, in the case of those owned by [=Working Groups=],
incorporated as part of a [=Recommendation=] as an <dfn oldids="registry-section">embedded registry</dfn>.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

in the case of is usually more words than necessary. I try to eliminate it whenever I see it.

Suggested change
or, in the case of [=Working Groups=], incorporated as part of a [=Recommendation=] as an <dfn oldids="registry-section">embedded registry</dfn>.
or, for [=Working Groups=], incorporated into a [=Recommendation=]
as an <dfn oldids="registry-section">embedded registry</dfn>.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Indirectly, I think which phrasing we pick here kind of depends on what we do on line 4727: depending on how we right the two parts of this contrast, we might suggest that doing a registry in a REC is the only way for WGs to do it, while we actually want to say that only WGs have the ability to do so, but that they can also do it standalone like everyone else.

Copy link
Contributor

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt Jan 16, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've suggested alternative wording that happens to address @frivoal 's comment above regarding WG options as well as removing "in the case of".

Comment on lines +4724 to +4726
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This wording could be misunderstood to mean that chartered groups that are not Working Groups can publish registry reports, but that Working Groups can only incorporate them into Recommendations.

Suggested change
[=Registries=] can be published by [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected groups=] either
as a stand-alone [=technical report=] on the [=Registry Track=] called a <dfn>registry report</dfn>,
or incorporated as part of a [=Recommendation=] as an <dfn oldids="registry-section">embedded registry</dfn>.
or, in the case of [=Working Groups=], incorporated as part of a [=Recommendation=] as an <dfn oldids="registry-section">embedded registry</dfn>.
[=Registries=] can be published by [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected groups=]
as a stand-alone [=technical report=] on the [=Registry Track=] called a <dfn>registry report</dfn>.
[=Working Groups=] have an additional option to incorporate them as part of a [=Recommendation=], as an <dfn oldids="registry-section">embedded registry</dfn>.


The [=registry report=] or [=embedded registry=] <em class=rfc2119>must</em>:
<ul>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -4814,22 +4814,22 @@ Updating Registry Tables</h4>
(i.e. [[#correction-classes|Class 5 changes]])
can be made by re-publishing the [=technical report=] that contains the affected table,
without needing to satisfy any other requirements for the publication
(not even Working Group consensus, unless this is required by the [=registry definition=]).
(not even consensus, unless this is required by the [=registry definition=]).
frivoal marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
Such [=registry changes=] do not trigger new [=Advisory Committee Reviews=],
nor Exclusion Opportunities,
and do not require verification via an [=update request=],
even for [=technical reports=] at maturities where this would normally be expected.
Such publications can be made
even in the absence of a [=Working Group=] chartered to maintain the registry
even in the absence of a group chartered to maintain the registry
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
even in the absence of a group chartered to maintain the registry
even in the absence of a [=group=] chartered to maintain the registry

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

[=groups=] also refers to the AB, TAG, and AC, which I don't think is appropriate in the context of this sentense

when the [=custodian=] is another entity.

Note: The custodian is only empowered to make [=registry changes=].
If the Working Group establishing the registry wishes
If the [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected group=] establishing the registry wishes
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
If the [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected group=] establishing the registry wishes
If the [=group=] establishing the registry wishes

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok with dropping to group, but I don't think the hyperlinking helps

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was going to make the same comment as @fantasai - not only is it unnecessary wording, but it's also a future potential maintenance gotcha.

to empower the custodian to add commentary on individual entries,
this needs to be part of the registry table’s definition.
If other changes are desired,
they need to be requested of the responsible Working Group--
or in the absence of a Working Group, of the Team.
they need to be requested of the [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected group=] responsible for maintaining the [=registry definition=]--
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
they need to be requested of the [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected group=] responsible for maintaining the [=registry definition=]--
they need to be requested of the group responsible for maintaining the [=registry definition=]--

or in the absence of such a group, of the Team.

Changes to the [=registry tables=]
made in accordance with [=candidate amendment|candidate=] or [=proposed amendments=] to the [=registry definition=]
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -4859,12 +4859,13 @@ Registry Data Reports</h4>
is that of the [=technical report=] holding the [=registry definition=].

Anytime a change is made to a [=registry definition=],
the Working Group <em class=rfc2119>must</em> update and republish
the [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected group=] maintaining the [=registry definition=]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
the [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected group=] maintaining the [=registry definition=]
the group maintaining the [=registry definition=]

<em class=rfc2119>must</em> update and republish
any document holding the corresponding [=registry tables=]
to make it consistent with these changes.

Given a recorded [=group decision=] to do so,
the [=Working Group=]
the [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected group=] maintaining the [=registry definition=]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
the [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected group=] maintaining the [=registry definition=]
the group maintaining the [=registry definition=]

<em class=rfc2119>may</em> republish the [=Registry Data Report=] to incorporate
[=editorial changes=].

Expand Down