[iaufwg] Registering the FOREIGN extension name

[William Pence]

regarding the procedural issues that have been raised...

1. What is the procedure for registering an extension with the IAUFWG?

I don't think we need any elaborate written procedure.  The IAUFWG just 
needs to be notified of the existence (or proposed existence) of the new 
XTENSION type.  The IAUFWG chairman then has the responsibility to see that 
that the name gets added to the list that is maintained on the FITS Support 
Office web site, (and currently documented in Appendix I of the FITS 
Standard).  The notification could be accomplished simply by posting a 
description of the extension type on FITSBITS or by sending an email to any 
IAUFWG member.  I can't think of any grounds for rejecting any legitimate 
request to register an extension name, so any vote or discussion by the 
IAUFWG should not be needed (although it's possible we could reject a 
frivolous, or prank request).  The only real issue is what 'Status' to 
assign to it (see next question).

2. What set of 'Status' categories are needed?

Other than 'S' for a fully approved standard extension type, I really don't 
see much value added by assigning the other status levels.   What is of much 
more importance is a short description of who proposed it, when it was 
proposed, what the extension type might be used for, the current level of 
implementation (is it just a vague idea, a well documented proposal, or has 
it been implemented and used in actual FITS files), and a reference to 
further information.  If it has reached the full implementation stage, then 
a description of the convention should certainly be included in the Registry 
of FITS Conventions (which is what is being done with the FOREIGN 
convention).  Another point to recognize is that adding a name to this list 
does not necessarily reserve that name indefinitely.  For instance, it is 
very unlikely that the 'COMPRESS' and 'VGROUP' names will ever be 
implemented as originally suggested, so there is no reason not to reuse 
those names for another purpose if someone wanted to.

It seems to me that we would waste more time than it is worth in trying to 
agree on a coherent set of status levels and then agreeing on what level to 
assign to each extension name.  Instead, I would rather scrap the 'Status' 
value, and replace it with a paragraph of text that just describes as much 
as is known about each extension type.   Any objections to this?  I 
volunteer to make a new draft of the list of reserved extension names, and 
then post it here for further comments.

Bill
-- 
____________________________________________________________________
Dr. William Pence                       pence at milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov
NASA/GSFC Code 662       HEASARC        +1-301-286-4599 (voice)
Greenbelt MD 20771                      +1-301-286-1684 (fax)