Re: [Gen-art] [ippm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alyssa,

Although we originally chose Expert Review (at IANA's request),
it seems the best policy choice is Specification Required
(which includes Expert Review), and IANA agreed at IETF-106.
  
We are in the process of finding and updating any stray instances 
of the old policy left behind...

Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 11:15 AM
> To: Roni Even (A) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]>; Roni Even
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [ippm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-
> registry-20
> 
> Roni, thanks for your review. Al, thanks for your response. I entered a
> DISCUSS ballot to get the registration policy clarified.
> 
> Alissa
> 
> 
> > On Nov 1, 2019, at 11:54 AM, Roni Even (A) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Al,
> > I saw that IANA was consulted during the work.
> > I was wondering what will be the actual text that will be written in the
> IANA registry, I expected section 10 to describe it.
> >
> > Registration Procedure(s)
> > Reference
> > Note
> >
> > I am not sure yet what is the Registration Procedure and what will be
> written in the Note
> >
> > Thanks
> > Roni
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gen-art [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of MORTON,
> ALFRED C (AL)
> > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 11:52 PM
> > To: Roni Even; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-
> metric-registry-20
> >
> > Hi Roni,
> > thanks for your comments, please see replies below.
> > Al
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Roni Even via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 4:25 AM
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-ippm-metric-
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20
> >>
> >> Reviewer: Roni Even
> >> Review result: Almost Ready
> >>
> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by
> >> the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like
> >> any other last call comments.
> >>
> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> >>
> >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >> 3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_gen_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwICaQ&c=LFYZ-
> >> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=mLefZkw5Y_ld2AFv2msgpzOV5
> >> Z7lZ JkKTdUQf48X15g&s=uUg9ktSDILsslqK-rG4YIc3gMW0n6oCa-7Dk0xtFZRo&e=>.
> >>
> >> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-??
> >> Reviewer: Roni Even
> >> Review Date: 2019-10-29
> >> IETF LC End Date: 2019-11-06
> >> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> >>
> >> Summary:
> >> The document is almost ready for publication as a BCP document
> >>
> >> Major issues:
> >>
> >> Minor issues:
> >> 1. From reading the document it looks to me that the registration
> >> policy should be specification required which also requires expert
> review.
> > [acm]
> > I understand that perspective. In early review with IANA we decided on
> Expert Review partly because two elements of registry entries require
> references to immutable documents, such as standards specifications.
> > So the requirement for specifications could be seen as built-in.
> > But we may change to Specification Required now, the last IANA review is
> in-progress.
> >
> >> 2. My understanding is that for registration a document is required ,
> >> not necessarily and RFC, but in multiple places in the document ( 7.3,
> >> 7.3.1, 8.2 ,...) the text talks about RFC and not document.
> > [acm]
> > Yes, a few of those slipped through, thanks.
> >
> >> 3. I am not sure if section 6 is needed in the published document based
> on its content.
> > [acm]
> > it's fairly easy for new implementers to pick-up an IPPM RFC (even a
> STD) and choose parameters that meet their needs. But for the additional
> advantage of measurement comparisons, more context is needed. Some may
> even ask why this registry requires the many details. Answer: See section
> 6.
> > A little history is good. Very few have been joining IPPM sessions long
> enough to know this history.
> >
> >> If it will remain then in 6.1
> >> first paragraph the reference should be to section 5 and not to section
> 6.
> > [acm] ok
> >
> >> 4.
> >> In sections 10.2 and 10.3 there are guidance taken from this document.
> >> I think that the for IANA it should say in the registry note that the
> >> registration must comply with RFCXXX (this document), I assume that
> >> there is no need to repeat all this text in these sections in the
> registry note.
> > [acm]
> > I have said on a few occasions that almost the entire memo contains IANA
> Considerations. Nevertheless, we wrote and reviewed the memo and (then
> wrote) the separate IANA section with IANA's help.
> >
> > I have implemented the agreed changes above in the working version.
> > Thanks again!
> >
> >>
> >> Nits/editorial comments:
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gen-art mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_gen-2Dart&d=DwIFAg&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-
> 6zYMI&m=2q0aurIg38tkrrArxC6BhJGR8A6r9_B7X9X70h7rmHQ&s=BkWy-
> yUsZUaGgC7d2gETnsQFmV-csAXHbUCx9lPc5RA&e=
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ippm mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwIFAg&c=LFYZ-
> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8-
> 6zYMI&m=2q0aurIg38tkrrArxC6BhJGR8A6r9_B7X9X70h7rmHQ&s=jk9faC1UKfhHsvFGPWHn
> cO7MjzGlPGlIPOewNjeSY6s&e=