Hi Roni,
Thanks for taking the time.
> Minor issues:
> 1. In section 3.2 (a): I noticed that the policy to update the registry
according
> to section 5 is standard action so it should be the same here since this is
an
> update to the registry.
Hmmm, but I don't think so.
Section 5 (and the existing registry) define the procedures to be used for
assigning new values from a namespace per 5226. Procedures for
retiring/deprecating values are rarely, if ever, documented and do not need to
follow the same rules as are used for assignments.
That said, I think I can see some value in symmetry. but it seems a bit OTT to
have a Standards Track RFC saying "this code point is not used". What is certain
(and we appear to agree on this) is that IETF consensus is needed (presumably as
tested by IETF last call on the relevant I-D).
Since we disagree, but my disagreement is not too strong, I will be guided by
the IESG (and specifically our sponsoring AD) as to whether to change:
OLD
An RFC with at
least Informational status is required.
NEW
A Standards
Track RFC is required.
END
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 1. In section 3 last sentence ?This answer to this? should be ?The ..?
Ack
> 2. In section 3.2 item c you have ?for for?
Ack
Cheers,
Adrian