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

David Bryan <dbryan@ethernot.org> Mon, 07 July 2014 20:06 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 973071B28B4 for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:06:16 -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 Yi1k7Vn5cu7A for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f42.google.com (mail-wg0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79D881A0A88 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id n12so3121275wgh.13 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 13:06:13 -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=loJ93q3HHBj0t+Cses3q4lBiVb08uWnmxkWKD9J4YKw=; b=XXddZVOqfCikGKb6F7wfOOXErJV+AYpCpkFBOzq1GNNfqcKouuNIYzRocD3JLAIONr adbUimQWZKmt1u6kUWAcud6q3lJcw6YxXg+N1WK6y06/e90EhKxfkaDRgL9UWgNbbcON cGt3zbEtl0ihXOZkzm1+EtseciEGczVTP7LZglr4b3TDfvRxAqUofSwiR9ll2pm1comh VgdPlehH2p4DnrwIQXAYZOAlIQpTvGyr0McbtTYdxtYCyt+f0mcyGgu9GiSqTrsFgkVC 3Nj/YhK1ODfVUNU6rdukNv8bMD/Y1vEIL+8kKPGrXgL02HdiCvHCdDYmZ8xksT5HzQ/u 7lvQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkGTDxOe5p3w8rF9/pdp2zREKP3pvnYAKEU5XkylaNUs0dJnh9xIJVnmwGzMVyE2d4E9zTq
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.212.68 with SMTP id ni4mr39211862wic.64.1404763573016; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 13:06:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.92.9 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 13:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [70.116.37.150]
In-Reply-To: <7C80BF6A-A600-42F3-9425-2659D3C1CFF5@neustar.biz>
References: <53B65DC1.2050805@ericsson.com> <7C80BF6A-A600-42F3-9425-2659D3C1CFF5@neustar.biz>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 15:06:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CADqQgCQKzCHbFR8bS1SL+8R8zQ7=b=PyYACNv6R0-Zmdr3ZTTQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Bryan <dbryan@ethernot.org>
To: "Rosen, Brian" <Brian.Rosen@neustar.biz>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3570cc377f104fda001cc
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/pCpfecMW_dStWEZ-yrkAhBAq4eE
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 20:06:17 -0000

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
>