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

"Roni Even" <> Thu, 23 October 2014 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC8A1A9134; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ml-oVVRDMuDq; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E11181A9237; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q5so939442wiv.2 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:thread-index:content-language; bh=P1WJdPolrQa+Y2/0pqO6MzBRKQIkM13f6Zw1m/+9dYA=; b=zFl153uX7Juw9CsXBfeV7Wl0Lr88aYTm2SpX6Iw4BP8mIC5L4BGc73UGFd2bfx+0OZ +s/zAPdS6lVtsRuvFxBpx6Lh54ULJn+016YA+Aq/A2RXULXrcnzUzPoDQAnmZtaJpuIT pTknCG02aFY2fwjlP3kwEEynCXNyIIR3EGTMAfqzvYjIrJrGYCpkkfvJ2ghrvV78X9Hu 1Y3JyiSj0ibHsJFoPtAmQ+0rCpbwYVWl1GCZlf+NAvoM6gpsoows8HSV16dVR/sJ4685 RA6NPpwI5+Sdf/Ums8pRcjn8pkkgX4bDJH6KF75ktJFl1P6kw4Tn5tq8pGWTeodIzcr2 LqWw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id er3mr13446145wib.18.1414076169584; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE ( []) by with ESMTPSA id nf6sm2857736wic.11.2014. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roni Even" <>
To: "'Barry Leiba'" <>
References: <051b01cfeec7$c5339b70$4f9ad250$> <> <052301cfeeca$a8914190$f9b3c4b0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:56:04 +0300
Message-ID: <054001cfeed1$79acd860$6d068920$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0541_01CFEEEA.9EFA1060"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQEaNrKeiEhDn6TlbW9G3P8K1O1+GQG12/WmAj7pk2oBuhkOgZ17vaYw
Content-Language: en-us
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:56:13 -0000


I am OK with your reasoning



From: [] On Behalf Of Barry
Sent: 23 October, 2014 5:18 PM
To: Roni Even
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis


I think that this is a point that should be made for anyone that needs to
specify the registration policy. My feeling is that when the document is
develop the focus is on the specified registry without looking at similar
ones. Maybe the document should suggest that the IESG or document shepherd
will try to verify that consistency was checked.


I'm very wary of suggesting that people copy registration policies from one
registry to another.  Mindless consistency between related registries in
specifically a non-goal here: the important point is that the policy for
each registry should be selected with though, and should apply to the needs
of *that* registry, even if that makes related registries differ.  I think
the document is clear about that.


We get ourselves in trouble when a batch of registries are all given the
same policy, and that policy turns out to be right for some and wrong for