Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-nfsv4-lfs-registry-02

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

On 16/02/2015 17:55, Thomas Haynes wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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        entry is obsolete, the status field of the obsoleted entry should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