Hi Marc, that makes sense for subclasses. I'm not as concerned about
uses of the base classes, but there also I think that it would be good
to provide some guidance for our customers ("did you choose the right
Unicode normalization form, casemapping rules, and bidirectional
handling?"), so I'd be fine with Expert Review for both subclass
registrations and usage registrations.Thanks for the feedback! Peter On 9/19/12 8:33 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote: > I think that Expert review is probably the best for any kind. The > main reason to me is to have someone to help the "customer", such as: > have you really thought about reusing one of the current defined > classes instead of creating a new one? have you thought about the > transition problem? … Kind of a way to interact with the > "customer" before too late. We do want to minimize the number of > sub-classes (or in general classes), therefore having an > "interception" mechanism would be useful. > > Marc. > > Le 2012-09-19 à 10:21, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit : > >> Currently, the RFC 5226 registration policy defined for subclasses >> is "First Come, First Served". Do we think that a slightly higher >> review standard is needed for subclasses, for instance "Expert >> Review" or even "Specification Required"? Although in general I am >> in favor of the lowest bar possible for registration, it strikes me >> that for subclasses we might want something more than "First Come, >> First Served" (IMHO "Expert Review" would be enough). For base >> class usage registrations, I think "First Come, First Served" is >> appropriate, although I would be open to "Expert Review" for those >> registrations as well.) >> >> Peter >> _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
