Makes sense. Thanks.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Rosen, Brian <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> > Date: Monday, July 7, 2014 at 1:06 PM > To: Brian Rosen <[email protected]> > Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[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]> > wrote: > >> Yeah, that seems to be appropriate to me. >> >> Brian >> >> On Jul 4, 2014, at 3:54 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo < >> [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] >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >> >> _______________________________________________ >> P2PSIP mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip >> > >
_______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
