Subject: [Cellar] Re: Mohamed Boucadair's Discuss on draft-ietf-cellar-tags-20: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
From: [email-masked]
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>, Steve Lhomme <[email-masked]>
Cc: The IESG <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 13:59:34 +0000
List-Id: Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and Realtime transmission <cellar.ietf.org>

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 <[email-masked]>
Envoyé : mardi 20 janvier 2026 02:34
À : Steve Lhomme <[email-masked]>
Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email-masked]>; The IESG <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
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 <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Hi Mohamed,

Thanks for your follow-up. My comments below.

On 15 Jan 2026, at 09:49, [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi Steve,

Thank you for the follow-up.

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Steve Lhomme <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Envoyé : dimanche 11 janvier 2026 09:49
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc : The IESG <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>;
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>;
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
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.