Hi Alyssa, Although we originally chose Expert Review (at IANA's request), it seems the best policy choice is Specification Required (which includes Expert Review), and IANA agreed at IETF-106. We are in the process of finding and updating any stray instances of the old policy left behind... Al > -----Original Message----- > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 11:15 AM > To: Roni Even (A) <roni.even@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Roni Even > <ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx>; gen-art@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; > ippm@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [ippm] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric- > registry-20 > > Roni, thanks for your review. Al, thanks for your response. I entered a > DISCUSS ballot to get the registration policy clarified. > > Alissa > > > > On Nov 1, 2019, at 11:54 AM, Roni Even (A) <roni.even@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Al, > > I saw that IANA was consulted during the work. > > I was wondering what will be the actual text that will be written in the > IANA registry, I expected section 10 to describe it. > > > > Registration Procedure(s) > > Reference > > Note > > > > I am not sure yet what is the Registration Procedure and what will be > written in the Note > > > > Thanks > > Roni > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gen-art [mailto:gen-art-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of MORTON, > ALFRED C (AL) > > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2019 11:52 PM > > To: Roni Even; gen-art@xxxxxxxx > > Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@xxxxxxxx; > ippm@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm- > metric-registry-20 > > > > Hi Roni, > > thanks for your comments, please see replies below. > > Al > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Roni Even via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx] > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 4:25 AM > >> To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx > >> Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx; ippm@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ippm-metric- > >> registry.all@xxxxxxxx > >> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20 > >> > >> Reviewer: Roni Even > >> Review result: Almost Ready > >> > >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by > >> the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like > >> any other last call comments. > >> > >> For more information, please see the FAQ at > >> > >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > >> 3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_gen_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=DwICaQ&c=LFYZ- > >> o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=mLefZkw5Y_ld2AFv2msgpzOV5 > >> Z7lZ JkKTdUQf48X15g&s=uUg9ktSDILsslqK-rG4YIc3gMW0n6oCa-7Dk0xtFZRo&e=>. > >> > >> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-?? > >> Reviewer: Roni Even > >> Review Date: 2019-10-29 > >> IETF LC End Date: 2019-11-06 > >> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > >> > >> Summary: > >> The document is almost ready for publication as a BCP document > >> > >> Major issues: > >> > >> Minor issues: > >> 1. From reading the document it looks to me that the registration > >> policy should be specification required which also requires expert > review. > > [acm] > > I understand that perspective. In early review with IANA we decided on > Expert Review partly because two elements of registry entries require > references to immutable documents, such as standards specifications. > > So the requirement for specifications could be seen as built-in. > > But we may change to Specification Required now, the last IANA review is > in-progress. > > > >> 2. My understanding is that for registration a document is required , > >> not necessarily and RFC, but in multiple places in the document ( 7.3, > >> 7.3.1, 8.2 ,...) the text talks about RFC and not document. > > [acm] > > Yes, a few of those slipped through, thanks. > > > >> 3. I am not sure if section 6 is needed in the published document based > on its content. > > [acm] > > it's fairly easy for new implementers to pick-up an IPPM RFC (even a > STD) and choose parameters that meet their needs. But for the additional > advantage of measurement comparisons, more context is needed. Some may > even ask why this registry requires the many details. Answer: See section > 6. > > A little history is good. Very few have been joining IPPM sessions long > enough to know this history. > > > >> If it will remain then in 6.1 > >> first paragraph the reference should be to section 5 and not to section > 6. > > [acm] ok > > > >> 4. > >> In sections 10.2 and 10.3 there are guidance taken from this document. > >> I think that the for IANA it should say in the registry note that the > >> registration must comply with RFCXXX (this document), I assume that > >> there is no need to repeat all this text in these sections in the > registry note. > > [acm] > > I have said on a few occasions that almost the entire memo contains IANA > Considerations. Nevertheless, we wrote and reviewed the memo and (then > wrote) the separate IANA section with IANA's help. > > > > I have implemented the agreed changes above in the working version. > > Thanks again! > > > >> > >> Nits/editorial comments: > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gen-art mailing list > > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_gen-2Dart&d=DwIFAg&c=LFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8- > 6zYMI&m=2q0aurIg38tkrrArxC6BhJGR8A6r9_B7X9X70h7rmHQ&s=BkWy- > yUsZUaGgC7d2gETnsQFmV-csAXHbUCx9lPc5RA&e= > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ippm mailing list > > ippm@xxxxxxxx > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_ippm&d=DwIFAg&c=LFYZ- > o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=_6cen3Hn-e_hOm0BhY7aIpA58dd19Z9qGQsr8- > 6zYMI&m=2q0aurIg38tkrrArxC6BhJGR8A6r9_B7X9X70h7rmHQ&s=jk9faC1UKfhHsvFGPWHn > cO7MjzGlPGlIPOewNjeSY6s&e= -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
