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

"Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz> Mon, 07 July 2014 20:15 UTC

Return-Path: <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
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 4183E1B28C1 for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 nrWP3FOXhu7Y for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com (mx0a-0018ba01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FBD61B28D3 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0049402.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049402.ppops.net-0018ba01. (8.14.7/8.14.7) with SMTP id s67KEf70019437; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 16:15:42 -0400
Received: from stntexhc10.cis.neustar.com ([156.154.17.216]) by m0049402.ppops.net-0018ba01. with ESMTP id 1my57thmur-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 07 Jul 2014 16:15:42 -0400
Received: from STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com ([169.254.5.252]) by stntexhc10.cis.neustar.com ([169.254.4.116]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 16:15:41 -0400
From: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
To: David Bryan <dbryan@ethernot.org>
Thread-Topic: [P2PSIP] Registration policy for services in draft-ietf-p2psip-service-discovery
Thread-Index: AQHPmfZA6TI7EMBUjkWX2onzS6JExJuVTO4A//+/lYA=
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 20:15:40 +0000
Message-ID: <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>
In-Reply-To: <CADqQgCQKzCHbFR8bS1SL+8R8zQ7=b=PyYACNv6R0-Zmdr3ZTTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
x-originating-ip: [10.33.192.29]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CFE077DF7038Cbrianrosenneustarbiz_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5600 definitions=7492 signatures=670477
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/n77ehM_mNMh3NXthuYW3Rp0rGE0
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 20:15:51 -0000

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<mailto:dbryan@ethernot.org>>
Date: Monday, July 7, 2014 at 1:06 PM
To: Brian Rosen <brian.rosen@neustar.biz<mailto:brian.rosen@neustar.biz>>
Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com<mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>>, "p2psip@ietf.org<mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>" <p2psip@ietf.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:P2PSIP@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
P2PSIP@ietf.org<mailto:P2PSIP@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip