Re: [CCAMP] Request for a "Designated Expert" to carve "OTN Signal Type" subregistry

["Zafar Ali (zali)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lou and Adrian: 

Many thanks for your quick review and comments. I see following as next
steps: 

- Once IETF flood gate reopens, we will submit the v00 (as is).
- In v01, we will address Adrian's comments.
- Push the draft to LC and wait for DE assignment/ comments at a later
stage (post LC?). 

Thanks

Regards Š Zafar


-----Original Message-----
From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sunday, November 9, 2014 12:09 AM
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, zali <[e-mail]>,
"'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A'" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Request for a "Designated Expert" to carve "OTN Signal Type"
subregistry

>Adrian,
>
>Thanks for being so proactive on this.  Your comments should be addressed
>as part of the normal wg process. I see no need for any AD action at thus
>time.
>
>Zafar,
>
>I'm glad to see you being a zealous author for the recently adopted
>draft. 
>What AD action are you requesting /issue do you see?
>
>Lou
>
>
>On November 8, 2014 9:54:20 PM "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
>wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> > (was:
>> 
>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-02
>>). 
>>
>> OK, I can refer to that draft.
>> Interesting that the header of the file says "PCE Working Group"
>>
>> > As you know, the "OTN Signal Type" subregistry is currently defined
>> > to use the Standards Action registration policy as defined by
>>[RFC5226].
>> > draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-00 directs that both
>> > Standards Action and Specification Required policies be applied to
>> > this subregistry.
>> >
>> > 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, the IETF has
>>consensus, and
>> both the IESG and IANA have reviewed the document.
>> DEs are not normally assigned until the moment the RFC is approved, or
>>even
>> later.
>>
>> Why do you think you need a DE now?
>>
>> While I have the document open...
>>
>> Section 1
>>    Why is paragraph 1 relevant to this document?
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Section 1
>>    This document extends "OTN Signal Type" subregistry...
>>
>> I don't think you are extending the registry, just redefining the
>>assignment
>> policy.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> ---
>>
>> As per Section 3.2 of RFC 5226, when a registry is defined to need DE
>>review,
>> the defining document should include criteria for the DE to follow when
>>making
>> assignment decisions. You need to write that section.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Adrian
>>
>>
>
>