Murray, Paul, Please stand by for half-written note... I should be able to finish and post the next couple of hours.
john --On Sunday, September 17, 2023 14:53 -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:49 AM Paul Kyzivat > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Section 7.2 seems to conflate two things: >> >> - the information that must be provided in a specification >> document that registers new limits >> >> - the information that is to included in the registry itself >> >> ISTM that the registry itself should contain the limit name >> and a reference to the specification document. It might also >> contain the value syntax, or at least an indication if a >> value is allowed. >> >> The descriptions of semantics, restrictions, and security >> considerations don't lend themselves to inclusion in the >> registry, but should be clearly spelled out in the >> specification. >> > > This is an interesting observation. I suppose I overlooked it > because by now I'm used to both types of registries. A good > example of this style is the media types registry, where some > of the details (e.g., option names) that you might normally > expect to find in the specification document only are actually > also required to be present in the registry. That model of > registry has been around for a pretty long time and we seem to > be fine with it. But most other newer registries are just a > table of the reserved name and a reference to the specifying > document, with all of the details typically stored in the > latter, with maybe a "status" column included. > > I'd be inclined to split the difference, and say either the > registry has to contain the limit value's syntax, or a > reference to the defining document where such can be found. > We allow this in the media types registry for security > considerations, for example. > > >> Also, the request for the new registry should probably >> include its exact name ("SMTP Server Limits"?), and that it >> should be included within the "MAIL Parameters" protocol >> registry. >> > > I agree, precision here is never a bad thing. > > -MSK _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
