> -----Original Message----- > From: COSE [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 11:01 AM > To: Jim Schaad <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-msg > > 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?
No, this issue applies to section 16.2 (Header parameters), 16.4 (Algorithms), 16.5 (Key Common Parameters) and 16.8 (Elliptic Curve Parameters). Since it is for more than just one section I think it could merit its own bullet point in 16.11 and that would be reasonable. Some additional text would also work as well, but it is not a one place fix. Jim > > > Thanks, > Kathleen > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > Kathleen > > _______________________________________________ > COSE mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
