Hello, top-posting. I just went through all of the downrefs and the only 2 that are not in the downref registry are RFC3610 and RFC7539.
Both have been referenced normatively before, RFC3610 by RFC4309, RFC5084, RFC5412, and RFC5669 and RFC7539 by RFC7905. I'll make a note of this when I start the last call and am adding them to the registry as I believe they are community accepted normative references. Thank you, Kathleen On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 7:27 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 >> -- Best regards, Kathleen _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
