Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 23 October 2014 13:51 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BD1D1A90DC; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 06:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bIYTiNKyEoy3; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 06:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22d.google.com (mail-lb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 928061A9099; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 06:51:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 10so875562lbg.18 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 06:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=OHE12YQTICTxFUm+eyWhuoTViaQoeILPeTHAcUJFfPI=; b=BxMxwWNgJxyd2C4WFCS7iL5AKoCXHjNJJ2DiD0ZKAPQqzqLo7PurcmBaITI0mcNKzc CtG35vPIMUnu0Zpwk8CuOC5YRRaYHIOiI9SSLEjcRWdq6mRO4Khr4AajOCiwazoDn9P9 d+WGzKYTM3SQLjZC0ruYVAakzp8T/NNf7Vyns4+d5H59IXvFZo2RQLauBrOP8zLqgMJs 4B7Fc1jR2WR3QMoLAYjt6KH6A4E9CUYrmeyLM5nVJdpzMTmVeGjt59SOA+en+hRctY/h zOz4DlgBa0MFP+NYsJ7XMhgAn1TrOWZc68eiXGL5R7KEwwFshKuVPJekiMbr6cNI4R7t YuPw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.172.231 with SMTP id bf7mr3154292lbc.100.1414072311491; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 06:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.8.103 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 06:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <051b01cfeec7$c5339b70$4f9ad250$@gmail.com>
References: <051b01cfeec7$c5339b70$4f9ad250$@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 09:51:51 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: YgZUp7EVDyJAxw__pBlmUryRZK0
Message-ID: <CALaySJLpKaaZUUD0DVKpi1ox_JiVOL3HROJ5wOfE_jkwshzvdA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c38bc6d032f20506175d3d
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/8P2EMsijKIcEtCOXD566uJJEUL4
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis.all@tools.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:51:55 -0000

Thanks for the review, Roni.

> Section 2.3 discusses the issue of defining appropriate registration
> policy. I was wondering about consistency between the policies of similar
> registries, is it important and how to verify it. For example the policy
> for
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-security-descriptions/sdp-security-descriptions.xhtml#sdp-security-descriptions-3
> is standard action and for
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/srtp-protection/srtp-protection.xhtml#srtp-protection-1
> is specification required. I think that such cases should be discussed when
> defining the registration policy.
>
>
The policies do, indeed, need to be thought out when the documents are
developed, and I think 5226bis is clear about that.  But those decisions
have to be made by those developing the documents, and I don't know what
more we can say here about it, beyond what's here.

Do you have any specific suggestions?

Barry