Roni, thanks for your review. Al, thanks for your response. I entered a DISCUSS ballot to get the registration policy clarified.
Alissa > On Nov 1, 2019, at 11:54 AM, Roni Even (A) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Al, > I saw that IANA was consulted during the work. > I was wondering what will be the actual text that will be written in the IANA > registry, I expected section 10 to describe it. > > Registration Procedure(s) > Reference > Note > > I am not sure yet what is the Registration Procedure and what will be written > in the Note > > Thanks > Roni > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gen-art [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of MORTON, ALFRED C > (AL) > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 11:52 PM > To: Roni Even; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of > draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20 > > Hi Roni, > thanks for your comments, please see replies below. > Al > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Roni Even via Datatracker [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 4:25 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-ietf-ippm-metric- >> [email protected] >> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20 >> >> Reviewer: Roni Even >> Review result: Almost Ready >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by >> the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like >> any other last call comments. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- >> 3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_gen_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwICaQ&c=LFYZ- >> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=mLefZkw5Y_ld2AFv2msgpzOV5 >> Z7lZ JkKTdUQf48X15g&s=uUg9ktSDILsslqK-rG4YIc3gMW0n6oCa-7Dk0xtFZRo&e=>. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-?? >> Reviewer: Roni Even >> Review Date: 2019-10-29 >> IETF LC End Date: 2019-11-06 >> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >> >> Summary: >> The document is almost ready for publication as a BCP document >> >> Major issues: >> >> Minor issues: >> 1. From reading the document it looks to me that the registration >> policy should be specification required which also requires expert review. > [acm] > I understand that perspective. In early review with IANA we decided on Expert > Review partly because two elements of registry entries require references to > immutable documents, such as standards specifications. > So the requirement for specifications could be seen as built-in. > But we may change to Specification Required now, the last IANA review is > in-progress. > >> 2. My understanding is that for registration a document is required , >> not necessarily and RFC, but in multiple places in the document ( 7.3, >> 7.3.1, 8.2 ,...) the text talks about RFC and not document. > [acm] > Yes, a few of those slipped through, thanks. > >> 3. I am not sure if section 6 is needed in the published document based on >> its content. > [acm] > it's fairly easy for new implementers to pick-up an IPPM RFC (even a STD) and > choose parameters that meet their needs. But for the additional advantage of > measurement comparisons, more context is needed. Some may even ask why this > registry requires the many details. Answer: See section 6. > A little history is good. Very few have been joining IPPM sessions long > enough to know this history. > >> If it will remain then in 6.1 >> first paragraph the reference should be to section 5 and not to section 6. > [acm] ok > >> 4. >> In sections 10.2 and 10.3 there are guidance taken from this document. >> I think that the for IANA it should say in the registry note that the >> registration must comply with RFCXXX (this document), I assume that >> there is no need to repeat all this text in these sections in the registry >> note. > [acm] > I have said on a few occasions that almost the entire memo contains IANA > Considerations. Nevertheless, we wrote and reviewed the memo and (then wrote) > the separate IANA section with IANA's help. > > I have implemented the agreed changes above in the working version. > Thanks again! > >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > > _______________________________________________ > ippm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
