Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-07: Discuss
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a minor thing, but people get really confused about it so I'd like to discuss it. This document allows for minting new "IETF Standard" tags by publishing documents that are not standards of any kind. That is, because the registry specified in 7.2 has its allocation policy as IETF Review, that means that informational documents can be used to register new "IETF Standard" tags. This seems ripe for creating further confusion about what is and is not an IETF "standard." Could these tags simply be called "IETF tags"? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I strongly encourage you to follow the advice of the Gen-ART reviewer and include a contact or change controller field in the registry defined in 7.1. For a registry where you expect other SDOs to be making registrations, this field can be critical if the registry entries need to be updated years after they are created. See RFC 8126 Section 9.5. Adam noted that RFC 8199 is now a downref, based on changes made in the -07, after IETF last call. I think this is fine and does not require another last call. _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
