Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-08

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> Sorry for delay in response

's OK.  Delays Я Us.

I think the only thing we're still stuck on is the Specification
Required vs Expert Review thing.  I've had a chat with Thomas and
Harald.  I have this to propose, so let me know, ASAP, what you think:

-- Section 2.3 --

OLD
   Therefore, working groups and other document developers should use
   care in selecting appropriate registration policies when their
   documents create registries.  They should select the least strict
   policy that suits a registry's needs, and look for specific
   justification for policies that require significant community
   involvement (those stricter than Specification Required, in terms of
   the well-known policies).
NEW
   Therefore, working groups and other document developers should use
   care in selecting appropriate registration policies when their
   documents create registries.  They should select the least strict
   policy that suits a registry's needs, and look for specific
   justification for policies that require significant community
   involvement (those stricter than Expert Review or Specification
   Required, in terms of the well-known policies).
END

-- Section 2.3.1 --

OLD
   The well-known policies from "First Come First Served" to "Standards
   Action" specify a range of policies in increasing order of strictness
   (using the numbering from the full list in Section 4):

   4.   First Come First Served
        No review, minimal documentation.

   5.   Expert Review
        Expert review with sufficient documentation for review.

   6.   Specification Required
        Expert review with significant, stable public documentation.
NEW
   The well-known policies from "First Come First Served" to "Standards
   Action" specify a range of policies in increasing order of strictness
   (using the numbering from the full list in Section 4):

   4.   First Come First Served
        No review, minimal documentation.

   5/6. Expert Review / Specification Required
        Expert review with sufficient documentation for review. /
        Expert review with significant, stable public documentation.
END

OLD
   The description in Section 4.10 of "IESG Approval" suggests that the
   IESG "can (and should) reject a request if another path for
   registration is available that is more appropriate and there is no
   compelling reason not to use that path."  The IESG should give
   similar consideration to any registration policy more stringent than
   Specification Required, asking for justification and ensuring that
   more relaxed policies have been considered, and the strict policy is
   the right one.
NEW
   The description in Section 4.10 of "IESG Approval" suggests that the
   IESG "can (and should) reject a request if another path for
   registration is available that is more appropriate and there is no
   compelling reason not to use that path."  The IESG should give
   similar consideration to any registration policy more stringent than
   Expert Review or Specification Required, asking for justification
   and ensuring that more relaxed policies have been considered, and
   the strict policy is the right one.
END

That makes the two policies of equal or unspecified strictness order.

WFY?

Barry