Please excuse typos, sent from handheld device
> On Sep 10, 2016, at 5:30 PM, Jim Schaad <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > Thanks, that wording is helpful as that wasn't entirely clear to me. Let me know when it's ready. I still need to dig into the downrefs, but that won't take long. Thanks, Kathleen > > 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
