OK, I am going to suggest that the paragraph should read as follows:
It is requested that IANA create a new registry entitled "COSE Header Parameters". The registry should be created as Expert Review Required. Guidelines for the experts is provided in Section 16.11. It should be noted that in additional to the expert review, some portions of the registry require a specification, potentially on standards track, be supplied as well. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: COSE [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 7:12 PM > To: Jim Schaad <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [COSE] AD review of draft-ietf-cose-msg > > Sorry I didn't see this message, not sure why. > > Hmmm, how about for the sections that have the need for a specification, you > add in something like: > > Please excuse typos, sent from handheld device > > > On Sep 6, 2016, at 6:10 PM, Jim Schaad <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So something along the lines of this? > > > > The registry is to be created as Expert Review Required. There are > > additional requirements for sub-ranges of values, > > > where a specification may also be necessary. Expert review guidelines > > are provided in Section 16.11. > > Thanks, > Kathleen > > > > 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 _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
