[Trans] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-31: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis-31: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Glad to see this revision of the protocol. My comments and questions should be
easy to address.

= Section 10.2, 10.4, 10.5 =

A Specification Required registry policy implies expert review. So a registry
policy of "Specification Required and Expert Review" is duplicative; it should
just say "Specification Required." I know this seems trivial but there has been
so much confusion about this through the years that it is important to be
precise.

= Section 10.3 =

This section needs to state what the registry policy is for the code points not
already registered (presumably Expert Review given 10.3.1, but it needs to be
explicit).

= Section 10.6.1 =

Using the term "Parameters Required" as a capitalized term is confusing. FCFS
registries by definition can require additional information to be provided in
order to get something registered. For avoidance of confusion I think the
assignment policy should be listed as First Come First Served and the
requirement that parameters be included in the application can use a normative
MUST in the last paragraph if there is concern that the parameters won't be
supplied.

However, I also wonder what will be done with the parameters that are supplied.
Is IANA expected to just maintain them privately, or to publish them?

What is expected to appear in the 'Log' column in the registry?


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In Section 1.1, please use the RFC 8174 boilerplate in lieu of the RFC 2119 boilerplate.