I'll post proposed text about the registration policies to this list in
the next few days.
On 9/19/12 6:42 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> I definitely agree with Peter and Marc. For decisions that essentially
> involve the whole Unicode repertoire, some "customer advice" will be
> appreciated. Ideally, that should happen on a mailing list, so that
> others than the Expert Reviewer him/herself may be able to contribute.
>
> Regards, Martin.
>
> On 2012/09/20 4:42, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> 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
