Hi Jim, Thank you for your answer and for addressing my comments.
On item #2: On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Jim Schaad <i...@augustcellars.com> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dan Romascanu [mailto:droma...@gmail.com] > > > > ... > > > > 2. I am a little confused by the definition of policies in Section 9.1: > > > > Depending upon the values being requested, registration requests are > > evaluated on a Standards Track Required, Specification Required, > > Expert Review, or Private Use basis [RFC8126] after a three-week > > review period on the cwt-reg-rev...@ietf.org mailing list, on the > > advice of one or more Designated Experts. > > > > How does this work? The request is forwarded to the designated expert, > > he/she make a recommendation concerning the policy on the mail list, and > > depending on the feedback received a policy is selected? Who establishes > > consensus? > > > > Frankly, I wonder if this can work at all. Are there other examples of > four > > different policies for the same registry, applied on a case-to-case > basis? > > This is the same approach that is being used for the COSE registries. As > an example, you can look at https://www.iana.org/ > assignments/cose/cose.xhtml#algorithms. > > Part of the issue about this is that the JOSE/JWT registries do have the > same different policies, but that differences are hidden from the IANA > registry. Since they allow for a URI to be used as the identifier of a > field, only the plain text versions are registered. Thus I can use " > http://augustcellars.com/JWT/My_Tag"; as an identifier. Since for CBOR > the set of tag values is closed and does not have this escape (nor would > one want the length of the tag) it is necessary to have this break down of > tag fields. > > > > This does not seem to be exactly the same approach. The COSE RFC 8152 defines the registry policy in a different manner. There is only one policy that is proposed 'Expert Review' and than the Expert Review Instructions are used to define the cases when a Standards Track specification is required. No such text exists in the current I-D. There is no separation of the values space in the registry according to the type of assignment here, as in RFC 8152. Regards, Dan
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
