On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Jim Schaad <[email protected]> wrote: >> Section 16.2 >> >> I think it's a little confusing to state the registry values require expert >> review, >> then buried in the 'label' description say it can be specification required. >> Wouldn't it be more clear to state that a dependency exists and a >> specification is >> required in the intro paragraph for this section? This applies to the other >> sections that also require a specification as it don't seem that all >> registries do. >> > > I separated this issue because I think it is potentially going to need more > discussion than any of the other issues.
Good, thanks. > > From the IANA point of view, I want to keep these registry rules simple. > That is, I want IANA to treat the registries as if everything is expert > review. > > Given that I want to break down the label ranges. Would it makes sense to > move this language from here to section 16.11 so that it is clear that this > will be for the expert reviewers to look at rather than for IANA to look at? Well, this just applies to section 16.2, right? If so, then I think the intro to just the subsection that requires a specification should also include that information. If it's buried within the subsection, I think it gets lost for the draft review process. It might work out fine when it's used to add to the registry, but it should be as clear as possible. If it were just in 16.11, I think that would be confusing since it doesn't apply to all the registries established by this draft. ANother sentence or two in the introduction should be all this requires to make it more clear. WHat do you think? Thanks, Kathleen > > Jim > > -- Best regards, Kathleen _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
