[GNAP] Re: Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers-09: (with COMMENT)

[Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>]

Sounds good, thanks for the clarification!

Francesca

From: Justin Richer <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, 2 October 2024 at 18:46
To: Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, GNAP Mailing List <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [GNAP] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers-09: (with COMMENT)
Hi Francesca,

Good observation about the IANA registries — I think we actually meant to have these both be Specification Required, matching what’s in GNAP Core. I remember we did change them in GNAP core, largely because when I wrote the text I didn’t realize that Specification Required also included Expert Review as a step. :) The rest of the IANA directions would stay the same.

 — Justin

> On Oct 2, 2024, at 11:57 AM, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers-09: No Objection
>
> 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://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-gnap-resource-servers/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for this document.
>
> One question about the new IANA registries with Expert Review policy. They do
> contain a Reference field, which seems to imply that a specification should be
> publicly available. Experts guidelines are also given to check that the
> definition for each registered parameter is valid, which I assume would be in
> such a specification. However nowhere it is stated that the specification
> should be public (and stable?).
>
> You could do like in RFC 7595 and add some text covering the fact that the
> Expert should check the specification exists and "if no permanent, citable
> specification (...) is included, credible reasons for not providing it SHOULD
> be given." This gives more flexibility than Specification required, while
> covering the requirement on the specification.
>
>
>
> --
> TXAuth mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]