Hi all,

We're getting ready to send this to Kathleen for processing
(hopefully to finish before her term as AD does!), but there are a
few nits that should be fixed with a new rev before we actually push
the button.

We currently have an informational reference to RFC 5226, which has
since been replaced by RFC 8126; we should update our citation to
the newer document with guidelines for writing IANA considerations.

In section 9.1 the second pargaraph says that the values are
registerd on a "Specification Required" basis, but we have some
ranges that are just "Expert Review".  So I think this text should
say "Expert Review" instead (with some of the guidance to the
experts being that certain subranges have additional requirements).

We also note that the Experts should consider "whether it is useful
only for a single application", and it's not entirely clear to me
what the reuslt of that consideration should be.  Is only being
useful for a single application supposed to be grounds for rejecting
a registration?  (That doesn't seem necessarily true, for the Expert
Review range.)  Or is that just a factor for whether "nice-looking"
names should be allowed for them?  Or something else?

In section 9.4, we attempt to register a value from the CBOR Tag
registry; however, the template in RFC 7049 includes a "description
of semantics" field, and not the "reference" field that we provide.

Finally, in the acknowledgments, we can ask the RFC Editor to use
the non-ASCII "GÅ‘ran" if he so desires.  (Last I heard the tooling
isn't there to use non-ASCII for internet drafts yet, though.)

Authors, will you be able to prepare a new version with these



Ace mailing list

Reply via email to