Experience suggest that some services can be created by some independent party, and often memorialized with a informational document. But, let’s say someone like OMS decides to do one – no problem.
Brian From: David Bryan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Monday, July 7, 2014 at 1:06 PM To: Brian Rosen <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Registration policy for services in draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery A bit curious...why Specification Required vs. RFC Required? Do you envision some other formal, but non-IETF document (other standards group, perhaps) being a valid path? Certainly no objection. The distinction between the two is just a bit confusing to me. On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Rosen, Brian <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Yeah, that seems to be appropriate to me. Brian On Jul 4, 2014, at 3:54 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Folks, > > we need to decide the IANA registration policy to register new services > in the draft below: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery-13#section-10.4 > > Out of the well-known IANA policies below, would Specification Required > (which includes a designated expert who will review new registrations) > be OK with the group? > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1 > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
