On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 8:48 AM Martin Thomson <m...@lowentropy.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022, at 02:45, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 2:20 AM Ben Schwartz > > <bemasc=40google....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> [...] any individual I-D is considered a qualified specification as > soon as it is uploaded to the Datatracker. > > > > Do you have a reference that asserts this? An I-D that isn't published > > will expire, which would appear to contradict "permanent and readily > > available". > > There is precedent (TLS docs), but I don't know if there is a reference. > Interesting. In my role as a media type reviewer, for example, it's unlikely I'd accept an I-D as a stable reference in a registration request except maybe for a provisional registration. I could be wrong, but my understanding of the intent of "Specification Required" is roughly "permanently published, though not necessarily by the IETF", so I think the bar is a little higher than just the existence of an I-D. As to the options proposed, I agree that Expert Review can introduce delay, but given the above, so too can Specification Required (maybe worse, in aggregate). So I recommend Expert Review. Finally, I just realized my DISCUSS on this document about the IANA Considerations is redundant to Ben's, so I'm going to go clear it and just support Ben's. -MSK
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
