Hi Murray, Thanks for the review. Please see inline
On Thu, 8 Aug 2024 at 12:41, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-16: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Sections 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5 create new IANA registries that all want to > use > Expert Review as a registration policy. "Expert Review" is defined in > Section > 4.5 of RFC8126, which says: > > The required documentation and review criteria, giving clear guidance > to the designated expert, should be provided when defining the > registry. It is particularly important to lay out what should be > considered when performing an evaluation and reasons for rejecting a > request. It is also a good idea to include, when possible, a sense > of whether many registrations are expected over time, or if the > registry is expected to be updated infrequently or in exceptional > circumstances only. > > I don't see any of that material in this document. Did I miss it? Do we > not > need it? > Good point, updated draft, please see https://github.com/tireddy2/mud-tls/blob/master/draft-ietf-opsawg-mud-tls-17.txt Cheers, -Tiru
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
