On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Jim Schaad <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> -----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).
Oh, that's right... 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. I think it will be more clear in each section since you can do it with just a sentence in the intro. It should help avoid problems later since each section adds to a registry or creates one. Thanks, Kathleen > > Jim > >> >> >> Thanks, >> Kathleen >> >> > >> > Jim >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Best regards, >> Kathleen >> >> _______________________________________________ >> COSE mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose > -- Best regards, Kathleen _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
