Hi Rich, thanks very much for your review! On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 at 18:01, Rich Salz via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I was confused by Section 3. At first I thought it was real examples > of erroneous registrations, but it is rather samples of things that > this draft would no prevent. Perhaps the introduction and/or title can > be made more clear. Makes sense. See an attempt at https://github.com/core-wg/cf-reg-update/pull/52 > In Section 4.1, I find two registration procedures depending on the > contents to be rather unusual. It seems simpler to make everything > expert review. But if this is WG consensus, that's okay. Indeed, that was the consnesus reached by the WG. > Sec 4.2 Defines a new early allocation procedure. Requests can be made > by draft authors. Are you sure that you want authors to be able to > request early allocation, rather than the WG chairs? Should it at > least be clarified that only authors of WG-adopted drafts? The document does not alter any of the procedures defined by RFC7120. We (only) explicitly state that such procedures apply to the "augmented" policies (i.e., "IETF Review with Expert Review" and "IESG Approval with Expert Review") outlined in the drfta, as this is not automatic. > Sec 4.4 should clarify state explicitly if there is one DE, or > multiple and what the quorum is. Is the DE team’s composition and consensus protocol usually explicitly defined? My instinct is to let the DEs self-organise on such matters. cheers, thanks! -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
