Re: [P2PSIP] Registration policy for services in draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery

David Bryan <dbryan@ethernot.org> Mon, 07 July 2014 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <dbryan@ethernot.org>
X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABBE31A0A88 for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
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 GteohIjTDRxt for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:17:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A58691A0515 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:17:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id hi2so7355874wib.13 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 13:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zjCx6U+HKOoLrTUDbkjr2YdCVICGvDEVw9s8ncHZL0g=; b=MmPYtgmpFGY5YR2YBk/krgeNkLb4tpCw/t6WK67ZbJTg//ldew5hiZWKZkFVTm6A4W n8xeWTV2JziL5C56ihwHH+VdYIe65wBR2aSpS2mxreRzmqOD4Wk2Y0txhs4OwTFVl+11 3l8BBSZiftcwsRKup2PHCmjXL5R7SGW7rDUw+Z/fKRR7jmv6LXz94y09YhoFe+nto6zk +GtZLtLfCofDoy9R/qqn2vfPEV9uNM4o2VmHuNMo4dc2LTkP3BIul4otZGZ3ADDWKzwp HdgekhqVZrp6QtKBcfGS+T6j0CZCN4J4eSKRliOIazWiZhI9pmdLYRTs1QR67rQUN1PB wRbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm/VktcSb1lRcn8OkZ92Zpt0MTQBkm3T1q8GFEUggXq+NBnEyvn13z75D3S//I4mjv0g/q8
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.10.168 with SMTP id j8mr79504418wib.73.1404764219296; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 13:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.92.9 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [70.116.37.150]
In-Reply-To: <CFE077DF.7038C%brian.rosen@neustar.biz>
References: <53B65DC1.2050805@ericsson.com> <7C80BF6A-A600-42F3-9425-2659D3C1CFF5@neustar.biz> <CADqQgCQKzCHbFR8bS1SL+8R8zQ7=b=PyYACNv6R0-Zmdr3ZTTQ@mail.gmail.com> <CFE077DF.7038C%brian.rosen@neustar.biz>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 15:16:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CADqQgCSi71E+zo7Kt7fjxqKXEOY3UASjiJ=LJ+cL_4u_yEHngA@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Bryan <dbryan@ethernot.org>
To: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2591848e36804fda028a9
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/3QylFqc5JiKGsSFr_tIUHIUXGpg
Cc: "p2psip@ietf.org" <p2psip@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Registration policy for services in draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2psip/>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 20:17:03 -0000

Makes sense. Thanks.


On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Rosen, Brian <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>;
wrote:

>  Experience suggest that some services can be created by some independent
> party, and often memorialized with a informational document.  But, let’s
> say someone like OMS decides to do one – no problem.
>
>  Brian
>
>   From: David Bryan <dbryan@ethernot.org>;
> Date: Monday, July 7, 2014 at 1:06 PM
> To: Brian Rosen <brian.rosen@neustar.biz>;
> Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>;, "p2psip@ietf.org";
> <p2psip@ietf.org>;
> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] Registration policy for services in
> draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery
>
>   A bit curious...why Specification Required vs. RFC Required? Do you
> envision some other formal, but non-IETF document (other standards group,
> perhaps) being a valid path?
>
>  Certainly no objection. The distinction between the two is just a bit
> confusing to me.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Rosen, Brian <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>;
> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, that seems to be appropriate to me.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On Jul 4, 2014, at 3:54 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo <
>> Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>; wrote:
>>
>> > Folks,
>> >
>> > we need to decide the IANA registration policy to register new services
>> > in the draft below:
>> >
>> >
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery-13#section-10.4
>> >
>> > Out of the well-known IANA policies below, would Specification Required
>> > (which includes a designated expert who will review new registrations)
>> > be OK with the group?
>> >
>> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Gonzalo
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > P2PSIP mailing list
>> > P2PSIP@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> P2PSIP mailing list
>> P2PSIP@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>>
>
>