So something along the lines of this? The registry is to be created as Expert Review Required. There are additional restrictions for sub-ranges of values. Expert review guidelines are provided in Section 16.11.
Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: COSE [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kathleen Moriarty > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 12:22 PM > To: Jim Schaad <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-msg > > 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 _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
