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

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
>>
>
>