Hi Barry, I think that this is a point that should be made for anyone that needs to specify the registration policy. My feeling is that when the document is develop the focus is on the specified registry without looking at similar ones. Maybe the document should suggest that the IESG or document shepherd will try to verify that consistency was checked.
As a general comment I found the document very educational mostly since I ran into an issue with registration policies and expert reviews results. Roni From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba Sent: 23 October, 2014 4:52 PM To: Roni Even Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis Thanks for the review, Roni. Section 2.3 discusses the issue of defining appropriate registration policy. I was wondering about consistency between the policies of similar registries, is it important and how to verify it. For example the policy for <http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-security-descriptions/sdp-security-desc riptions.xhtml#sdp-security-descriptions-3> http://www.iana.org/assignments/sdp-security-descriptions/sdp-security-descr iptions.xhtml#sdp-security-descriptions-3 is standard action and for <http://www.iana.org/assignments/srtp-protection/srtp-protection.xhtml#srtp- protection-1> http://www.iana.org/assignments/srtp-protection/srtp-protection.xhtml#srtp-p rotection-1 is specification required. I think that such cases should be discussed when defining the registration policy. The policies do, indeed, need to be thought out when the documents are developed, and I think 5226bis is clear about that. But those decisions have to be made by those developing the documents, and I don't know what more we can say here about it, beyond what's here. Do you have any specific suggestions? Barry
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
