Re: [port-srv-reg] Slides for TSVWG on draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> 
> Magnus,
> slides look fine, you are missing the action item that I requested that
> the draft contain the format of the registry so Alfred and I can
> generate the registry clean-up document that will update this document
> and move registrations around etc.

The point of the doc is to update the procedures for updating the
registry, and to unify control of the registries under one aegis.

Since we're not indicating an automatic interface to that information,
other than indicating the fields (which we should and already do), the
remainder is merely presentation, and I don't see why this doc should
require, recommend, or even give an example of that.

Joe



> On 22/03/2010 12:35 PM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Update version of the slides
>>
>> Magnus
>>
>> Magnus Westerlund skrev 2010-03-22 08:47:
>>> Hi Alexey,
>>>
>>> The slides was a start collecting the issues. I was hoping that someone
>>> would pick it up and do a pass over them to create something more
>>> useful.
>>>
>>> Regarding the reference. We clearly have interactions between the
>>> documents and those needs to be sorted out. One possibility that I
>>> proposed was that Olafurs document would need to update this one as it
>>> comes out. But see discussion on TSVWG mailing list.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Magnus
>>>
>>> Alexey Melnikov skrev 2010-03-21 22:05:
>>>> Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I looked through the emails I had in my folders and constructed the
>>>>> attached slides. As TSVWG is on Monday we don't have a lot of time. My
>>>>> question to all of you are that you help identify the ones that aren't
>>>>> simple editorial and where we might not have consensus.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please rehash these slides in anyway you want.
>>>> I only have 1 general comment about your slides (which look fine
>>>> otherwise). It would be nice to know how you suggest to address various
>>>> issue. Your slides list all issues, but they don't say if all issues
>>>> will be addressed.
>>>>
>>>> I personally think that not all of them should be addressed. For
>>>> example
>>>> I am not convinced that the reference to
>>>> draft-gudmundsson-dnsext-srv-clarify needs to be normative.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Port-srv-reg mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Port-srv-reg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/port-srv-reg