From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, "lberger@labn.net"
 <lberger@labn.net>, "'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A'" <db3546@att.com>
Thread-Topic: Request for a "Designated Expert" to carve "OTN Signal Type"
 subregistry
Thread-Index: AQHP+8KgYRSfIOgpZ0y49ZwK8vQ/QZxX/cWA///o6YCAAH2OgIAA1FKA
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 02:35:28 +0000
Message-ID: <D0858EA5.D7293%zali@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <008801cffbfb$98b3d880$ca1b8980$@olddog.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <D6F0208BBE91644A85B7B00D18FB246C@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/NlyVruNlMID6RWXGvswkP7cVTcs
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Request for a "Designated Expert" to carve "OTN Signal
 Type" subregistry
Precedence: list

Hi Adrian-=20

Thanks for your comments and input. Let us address your comments and work
with the chairs and the WG.

Many thanks,=20

Regards =8A Zafar


-----Original Message-----
From: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Reply-To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Sunday, November 9, 2014 4:00 AM
To: zali <zali@cisco.com>, "lberger@labn.net" <lberger@labn.net>,
"'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A'" <db3546@att.com>
Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Request for a "Designated Expert" to carve "OTN Signal Type"
subregistry

>Hello again,
>
>> >> This is with regard to the recently adapted
>> >> draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-00
>> >
>> >There is no such draft in the repository.
>> >I looked pretty carefully. Please let me know if I messed up.
>>=20
>> It is a recently adapted draft, which we were unable to submit as IETF
>> flood gate is closed. But will be submitting during IETF week.
>
>OK. Understood. It was not helpful to me to provide a reference to an I-D
>that
>does not exist.
>
>> >> In the light of the above, can you please help us get a Designated
>> >> Expert to review and carve "OTN Signal Type" subregistry?
>> >
>> >Not yet.
>> >Let's wait until the working group has consensus,
>>=20
>> Done,
>
>Really? The WG last call has happened?
>Chairs, is this true?
>
>> >the IETF has consensus, and
>> >both the IESG and IANA have reviewed the document.
>>=20
>> I assume this will be post LC?
>
>Yes. No change to normal process.
>
>> >DEs are not normally assigned until the moment the RFC is approved, or
>> >even later.
>> >
>> >Why do you think you need a DE now?
>>=20
>> I thought that next step was to work with a DE to agree on how the new
>> registry look like.
>
>Nope. The document editor is supposed to work with the working group on
>such
>stuff.
>
>> >Section 2
>> >
>> >In defining that two assignment policies be applied to this registry
>>you
>> >need to be careful to define what you mean. Do Standards Track
>> >documents need DE review? What happens if the DE disagrees?
>> >Do you mean that this is an either/or situation?
>>=20
>> This is a good point. But the issue is that at present registry is
>>defined
>> as "Standards Track" and this draft suggests we need "Specification
>> Required" policy to be supported, as well. Does this mean that
>> moving-forward the registry will be "Specification Required"?
>
>I understand there is an issue with the current registry and that you are
>looking to make changes.
>I am just pointing out that the text you currently have is broken.
>You need to work with the working group to decide what you want it to say.
>
>Adrian
>