Hi Alissa, Section 10.1 say:
Registration Procedure: Specification Required What else do you think is needed? Mirja > On 4. Dec 2019, at 17:15, Alissa Cooper <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
