Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-02
Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Mon, 16 February 2015 18:47 UTC
Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 3EBDC1A1DBC; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:47:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 8w-W3d_DnPH9; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:47:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from statler.isode.com (ext-bt.isode.com [217.34.220.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61AA51A1F70; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:47:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1424112433; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=hQVD+/BnqcLRTvIiS+YytUFMuVP92bZOuuAmuko+1RM=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=uHJdhzVz6dHGPRQWiUZChXdVxbiAgG2KFRsjEsd64Rc4KJbbikFPhTZwoLp+ZTqAEsuJcI fsQqIy3bIxdCI81yTOIJhl99CrTqmojW/gUR+IV4e4SK78qkZObaQrsZoNPboaCreydwsc PK9Eh/JhVVF9Q8ryg/thxZhzjPD84t0=;
Received: from [172.20.1.215] (dhcp-215.isode.net [172.20.1.215]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <VOI7MABYAm-g@statler.isode.com>; Mon, 16 Feb 2015 18:47:13 +0000
Message-ID: <54E23B2E.4070300@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 18:47:10 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
To: Thomas Haynes <thomas.haynes@primarydata.com>
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-02
References: <54DB4258.9050105@isode.com> <D85D2CD2-6C8B-4740-B934-986CD2AE6032@primarydata.com> <54E1D1DE.4000007@isode.com> <3D497252-036F-4A66-BDCB-B50482D5FC76@primarydata.com>
In-Reply-To: <3D497252-036F-4A66-BDCB-B50482D5FC76@primarydata.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WTXl4tY-8tjIgcAI3G36JgrmCQM>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry.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: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 18:47:16 -0000
Hi Tom, On 16/02/2015 17:55, Thomas Haynes wrote: >> On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Tom, >> >> On 11/02/2015 21:14, Tom Haynes wrote: >>> Hi Alex, >>> >>> Thanks for the review. >>> >>> Comments inline. >>> >>> Tom >>> >>>> On Feb 11, 2015, at 3:51 AM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote: [snip] >>>> In Section 5: >>>> >>>> Label Description: - what is the allowed character set for this field? Is it ASCII? Is it UTF-8 with some restrictions? >>> Label Description: A human readable ASCII text string that describes >> This is a good change. > This was the original text. :-) Oops :-). I think you need to add a reference to RFC 20 for US-ASCII. It would also be better to say that control characters should not be allowed. >>>>> Status: A short ASCII text string indicating the status of an entry >>>>> in the registry. The status field for most entries should have >>>>> the value "active". In the case that a label format selection >>>>> entry is obsolete, the status field of the obsoleted entry should >>>>> be "obsoleted by entry NNN". >>>> What is entry NNN? Is it a document reference (e.g. An RFC)? >>> It is another entry in the registry. That new entry will provide the mapping to a document reference. >> Some registries allow obsoletion of entries which are just not considered to be a good idea anymore. I don't know if your document should allow for that or not. > This registry does not consider worthiness as a criteria. Ok. >>>> Is it possible to obsolete without such entry? >>> No, Section 5.3 is clear on that. >>> >>>> In Section 5.3 - is it possible to update a label description document without requesting a new label? For example if changes are editorial and don't significantly affect label syntax and model. >>>> >>> Two considerations: >>> >>> 1) Edit of “Description” - I don’t see a problem with allowing this to occur. >>> >>> 2) Edit of “Reference” - Which is what I think you are asking about here. >> I was asking about both. >>> If we consider IETF created RFCs, we know that a -bis is a legitimate need for an update as it obsoletes the earlier RFC. >>> >>> And if we consider non-IETF created documents, I think we need to fall back Designated Expert reviewer to answer whether the new document requires a new label or we can allow an edit. >>> >>> This is rough, but I’d envision a new Section 5.4: >>> >>> 5.4. Modifying an Existing Entry in the Registry >>> >>> A request to modify either the Description or the published >>> label format specification will also require the Specification >>> Required IANA policy to be applied. The Designated Expert reviewer >>> will need to determine if the published label format specification >>> either >>> >>> obsoletes the Label Format Specifier - follow the process in Section 5.2. >>> >>> updates the label syntax and/or model - approve the change. >> I like this. >>>> Nits/editorial comments: >> Best Regards, >> Alexey > And Alexey, thank you very much for that last point, I think it makes the document more complete. > > I’ve applied the changes, let me know if you want to see an early copy of the next version. I am satisfied with your responses where new text was discussed and agreed upon. Thank you for replying so quickly and doing the updates! Best Regards, Alexey
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART IESG Telechat re-review of … Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART IESG Telechat re-review of … Jari Arkko
- Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registr… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-reg… Tom Haynes
- Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-reg… Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-reg… Thomas Haynes
- Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-reg… Alexey Melnikov