Re: [CDNi] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing (take 2)

Specification Required already covers most of the concerns. An expert
in URI Signing should generally know what constitutes an acceptable
specification. I don't generally see advice for experts in other RFCs,
but I'm not an expert there.

That said, I might already have some registry extension thoughts. :)
We'll see if anyone is interested in picking up that work, though.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:52 PM Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I've read into RFC8126 a little more and I don't think there needs to be anything more specific said for expert guidance.. I'm fine with adding a paragraph to that effect as well. I think with the spec required, it's going to be fairly obvious what the use case is, and furthermore the expert shouldn't be needlessly restricted as they are indeed an expert. I don't think we need to make the barrier any higher for registration, and I don't think additions to the registry will be common. I'll note that in the paragraph as well. Thoughts?
>
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 12:44 PM Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I have updated with your comment.
>>
>> Not sure what kind of additional guidance you are looking for. I'm open to the idea, but I'd need some example text to consider. Is there a document that you feel has done a particularly good job that I could reference?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:28 AM Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Phil,
>>>
>>>   For the IANA registry, I think you want to pattern it more like section 6.4, since this is creating a new subregistry, e.g.:
>>>
>>>     The IANA is requested to create a new "CDNI URI Signing Verification Code" subregistry, in the "Content Delivery Networks Interconnection (CDNI) Parameters" registry.  The "CDNI URI Signing Verification Code" namespace defines the valid values associated with the s-uri-signing CDNI Logging Field.  The CDNI URI Signing Verification Code is a 3DIGIT value as defined in <ref>section 4.5</ref>.  Additions to the CDNI URI Signing Verification Code namespace will conform to the "Specification Required" policy as defined in [RFC8126].
>>>
>>>     The following table defines the initial Verification Codes:
>>>
>>>   Also, for the new registries, do we want to give any additional guidance to the expert reviewer as to what would make for a reasonable or unreasonable addition to each registry?
>>>
>>> thanx.
>>>
>>> --  Kevin J. Ma
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 3:28 PM Phil Sorber <sorber@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/PSUdaemon/URISigningSpec/pull/63
>>>>
>>>> Please confirm this was the intent of the comments.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:41 PM Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>>   The WGLC has now closed.  There were no major objections.  We will address Chris's comments and move forward with submitting the draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanx!
>>>>>
>>>>> --  Kevin, Phil, and Francois
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 1:46 AM Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Today will begin the two-week WGLC on: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-18
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Please send any comments, questions, or concerns to the CDNI mailing list: cdni@ietf.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  The WGLC will end on Wednesday August 7, 2019, at which time, assuming there are no objections, we will submit the draft to the IESG
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanx!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --  Kevin, Phil, and Francois
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CDNi mailing list
>>>>> CDNi@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni
>
> _______________________________________________
> CDNi mailing list
> CDNi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cdni