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

["Roni Even" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry,

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.

 

 

As a general comment I found the document very educational mostly since I
ran into an issue with registration policies and expert reviews results. 

 

Roni

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Barry
Leiba
Sent: 23 October, 2014 4:52 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis

 

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-desc
riptions.xhtml#sdp-security-descriptions-3>
http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-security-descriptions/sdp-security-descr
iptions.xhtml#sdp-security-descriptions-3 is standard action and for
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/srtp-protection/srtp-protection.xhtml#srtp-
protection-1>
http://www.iana.org/assignments/srtp-protection/srtp-protection.xhtml#srtp-p
rotection-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