Subject: [CCAMP] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:58:02 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is DISCUSS because I'm not sure the instructions will be clear to
IANA.

   This document requests that the "OTN Signal Type" subregistry of
   the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
   Signaling Parameters" registry be updated with the following
   registration policies: "Standards Action" and "Specification
   Required" as defined in [RFC5226].

As we've talked about in response to Álvaro's review, this should say

   "Standards Action" or "Specification Required"

With "or", not "and".  It also wouldn't be a bad thing to follow Álvaro's
suggestion of adding the conditions, such as:

   "Standards Action" or "Specification Required", with the latter used
in
   the case of registration requests that do not come from IETF
documents.

The existing "and" makes it sound like a designated expert will do a
review of the specification even when it falls under Standards Action,
and that's not what's intended.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:07:54 -0400

Barry, IESG,

We've been down this road before and the last time in discussion with
the iesg (including you and others) and iana (Pearl) we ended up with
the following boiler plate:

The registry should be established with registration policies of
"Standards Action" for Standards Track documents, and "Specification
Required" for other documents. The designated expert is any current
<fill-in> WG chair.

Does this work for everyone?  If not, what boiler plate do you want us
to use the next time?

Thanks,
Lou

PS this also impacts at least the TEAS WG and perhaps a bunch of others.

On 3/15/2016 3:58 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:37:50 -0400

> Does this work for everyone?

It does, indeed: it's specific and clear.  Thanks.

I'll clear the DISCUSS now, knowing that you have it in hand.

Barry

---

From: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 03:33:02 +0000

Just to close on this: I've now uploaded v-05 with this change, and the wording change suggested by Vijay.

Cheers

Matt