Hi Pasi,
Thank you for your review.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
comments you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-10
Reviewer: Pasi Eronen
Review Date: 2007-11-23
IETF LC End Date: 2007-11-23
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has
nits that should be fixed before publication.
Comments:
Well written document, with only one nit:
The document effectively creates a new "name space" for
notification-capability values, and defines a single value
"online".
You are correct.
Shouldn't this be included in the IANA
considerations section, requesting IANA to maintain a
registry for notification-capability values?
When I defined the "online" value I wanted to make
notification-capability extensible, but I was not convinced that new
values would be needed.
My current preference is not to create a separate IANA registry for
this, but added it once needed.
But I would like to hear if other people have different opinions (and
maybe examples?).
Regards,
Alexey
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
