Re: [salud] First draft of changes for "expert review"

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Wed, 21 May 2014 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@ariadne.com>
X-Original-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A9441A06EF for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 12:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1] autolearn=ham
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 dD6QUsiUoOJl for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 12:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8B6E1A052E for <salud@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2014 12:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta24.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.76]) by QMTA11.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 4hXx1o0071ei1Bg5BjPPkv; Wed, 21 May 2014 19:23:23 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([24.34.72.61]) by omta24.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 4jPK1o0121KKtkw3kjPLS2; Wed, 21 May 2014 19:23:21 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s4LJNJsZ001103; Wed, 21 May 2014 15:23:19 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id s4LJNJdx001102; Wed, 21 May 2014 15:23:19 -0400
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:23:19 -0400
Message-Id: <201405211923.s4LJNJdx001102@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
In-reply-to: <537CD09A.7050705@alum.mit.edu> (pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu)
References: <201405192318.s4JNIKaH003254@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <537CD09A.7050705@alum.mit.edu>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1400700203; bh=71qWuh2JCdXr0kJvGjhJcleov8cMAS321uMonOW5lBo=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Date:Message-Id:From:To: Subject; b=CJjU24Sxd+h3bGKAClI/GDwq9wi6YMsfhhreUAX9yDBoSe9YthCUqhiB6o88sl0r1 XNAaQScZl0ab7hP7M0V85K3IdjyL85eEUqehTYJcd1lptZvxjCLmqI+xViDhEJnl5h YwESADU3ORHKE5KAWdQlKjZ7y/MCXRuy3MWWGj6snq3VLT6b5xT0rT7kkTHl01hiCf AYA+J68pcZ9rBpWBtu8DCy6hsW8lBJsfrEfWZQ8ZisLQkcmuCrZQaxS1AUeMpqrat/ L4L00DE5MTFt2susCwnkLaS+STmuO98unIyswJFjHFHH4DPQSsNlLyWodzEppJl56Y bgly7e7oJW0zA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/salud/6dHZ3rnm_YZQnRxI-kZe-03mZIk
Cc: salud@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [salud] First draft of changes for "expert review"
X-BeenThere: salud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Sip ALerting for User Devices working group discussion list <salud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud/>
List-Post: <mailto:salud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 19:23:26 -0000

[as an author]

> From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>;
> 
> > This is a first draft of changes needed to change the control of
> > alert-info URNs from "Standards Action" to "Expert Review".  I think
> > I've found all places in the text that would need to be modified.
> 
> I've looked at 5226, and I think we might want Specification Required 
> rather than Expert Review. Specification Required also calls for expert 
> review, but in addition requires there to be a publicly available 
> specification.

That makes sense to me.

> > A new <alert-identifier> that has more than one <alert-ind-part> is
> > the extension of a parent <alert-identifier>, which is determined by
> 
> Is "extension" the right word here?
> I think perhaps "refinement" or "narrowing".

Yes, I've heard the word "refinement" used to mean "create a smaller
sub-category of an existing category".  E.g., "refine a distinction".

Dale