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

"Roni Even" <> Thu, 23 October 2014 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A3AA1A9135; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:07:26 -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 sDPxyhFMJyKE; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C32941A9134; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q5so870158wiv.5 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:07:22 -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=g9qqMpNk4n7vJjNCQ0yhDrCuAqK2exxFkQe36p2swjY=; b=zOqupSdMovMWQZjGqKKZNWythmFrMCHFZUx1v1VH11pUiSgpVHkgOZxO4GHHHl7k0m 1HHiU23EDysSy0ZyOwA9U9lPdyaXyy+bP9GdGvUxIwgYe6lzEpCQ/ZRh+dZ/9Hhs7VA1 Ypg8QvRh58yoeeHWL8BefuWrjcVENAWtTqclvk/CAMf0SAtIlKa9tSQ0Qy//UBpaS24Y OjtdhGBxGALkpHQtyopPDBtT0Kd73LyrJwMgbaf0/Hk3gfoNbwwyM2kk/HMM2Ib0XVQP meP0vRo2rpYUvwYjqxlFug64tNeqVz1bXNZj3BpwznzQiv3Wf0Ta0aTVLrQz5lNotFo6 5c8Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id ft1mr44469120wib.71.1414073242123; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from RoniE ( []) by with ESMTPSA id f7sm2717153wiz.13.2014. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Roni Even" <>
To: "'Barry Leiba'" <>
References: <051b01cfeec7$c5339b70$4f9ad250$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 17:07:15 +0300
Message-ID: <052301cfeeca$a8914190$f9b3c4b0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0524_01CFEEE3.CDDF3CE0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQEaNrKeiEhDn6TlbW9G3P8K1O1+GQG12/WmnZt2EAA=
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 14:07:26 -0000

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. 




From: [] On Behalf Of Barry
Sent: 23 October, 2014 4:52 PM
To: Roni Even
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
iptions.xhtml#sdp-security-descriptions-3 is standard action and for
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?