IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cbor] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 26 October 2023 07:19 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cbor@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD69FC14F74A; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 00:19:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.905
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.905 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p4zbdBJvvIcz; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 00:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 062CAC1519B3; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 00:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2a00:20:7041:e9e5:b419:5900:f073:5d75]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4SGHGb0r0pzDCd6; Thu, 26 Oct 2023 09:19:03 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-13D66CB1-6064-4536-9F68-8589987C0D56"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <169830227782.35150.18313222083530442589@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 09:18:52 +0200
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag@ietf.org, cbor-chairs@ietf.org, cbor@ietf.org, barryleiba@computer.org
Message-Id: <E44B68D4-38CE-45C9-A368-0172F338A497@tzi.org>
References: <169830227782.35150.18313222083530442589@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (21B74)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cbor/f7S0cnkFK-SvGwPj2h-mb8JaVLo>
Subject: Re: [Cbor] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: cbor@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Concise Binary Object Representation \(CBOR\)" <cbor.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cbor/>
List-Post: <mailto:cbor@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor>, <mailto:cbor-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 07:19:17 -0000

Hi Murray, 

I’m at the dentist, but the quick answer is “both” (as in “a schnitzel with a combination of potatoes and carrots”). 
So the DE is always in the loop. 

The background is that we have experienced documents being approved without consulting the DE, and that has not always worked well—the iesg has a combination of experience that doesn’t always include that of a DE for a specific registry. As you note, the job of the DE here  is slightly more complex than for other registries. 

I’ll do a PR with better wording when I get close to a keyboard again. 

Sent from mobile, sorry for terse

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 08:38, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-cbor-time-tag-11: 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-cbor-time-tag/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Section 7.2 establishes a new IANA registry using "a combination of "Expert
> Review" and "RFC Required" as the Registration Procedure".  How are they
> combined?  Is it either-or?  Do different ranges have different policies?  Does
> the applicant get to choose?  Does the designated expert get to choose?
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks to Thomas Fossati for the ARTART review.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CBOR mailing list
> CBOR@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cbor

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email