[Cellar] Re: Mohamed Boucadair's Discuss on draft-ietf-cellar-tags-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Steve Lhomme <[e-mail]>]

Hi Med and Spencer,

I created a Pull Request to add a “Guideline for Designated Experts” in the IANA section: https://github.com/ietf-wg-cellar/matroska-specification/pull/1066

In addition to the new rules from #1062 one important part is that binary data should have a reference document.

Best,
Steve

> On 20 Jan 2026, at 14:59, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
>  
> Thank you Spencer.
>  
> Steve, for the Designated Expert Guidance, I’m afraid that what you have in PR#1062 is more for authors, not DEs who will be reviewing requests. I have already provided an example of such guidance. I suggest that you work this with the responsible AD.
>  
> Cheers,
> Med
>  
> De : Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : mardi 20 janvier 2026 02:34
> À : Steve Lhomme <[e-mail]>
> Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: Mohamed Boucadair's Discuss on draft-ietf-cellar-tags-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>  
>  
> 
> I'm not Med, but ...
>  
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2026 at 3:46 AM Steve Lhomme <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Hi Mohamed,
>  
> Thanks for your follow-up. My comments below.
> 
> 
> On 15 Jan 2026, at 09:49, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>  
> Hi Steve, 
> 
> Thank you for the follow-up.
> 
> Please see inline.
> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Steve Lhomme <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Envoyé : dimanche 11 janvier 2026 09:49
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Cc : The IESG <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Objet : Re: Mohamed Boucadair's Discuss on draft-ietf-cellar-tags-
> 20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> 
> Hi Mohamed,
> 
> Sorry for the delay to respond to this. My replies are found
> inline.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ## Do you expect allowing registrations based on individual I-
> Ds, for example?
> 
> I don't understand the question.
> 
> [Med] Given that Specification Required Policy you picked here requires "permanent and readily" spec, some may consider I-Ds not falling under that criteria while others adopts a less strict approach. This is an example of a consideration that you can include in the DE guidance for this specific registry.
>  
> I still don’t understand what are “I-Ds” here. Do you mean Tag Names ?
> Do this proposal answer your question about “Specification Required” policies ? https://github.com/ietf-wg-cellar/matroska-specification/pull/1062 
>  
>  
> I expect Med is asking something like 
>  
> "I-Ds" ("Internet-Drafts") formally "expire" after 6 months - are the Designated Experts to consider an expired I-D (which is still available in the repository - it's just marked "Expired") to be OK for Specification Required?  
>  
> Med, if I missed that one, please advise!
>  
> Best,
>  
> Spencer
> ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.