Re: Comments on draft-ietf-kitten-gssapi-extensions-iana-02.txt

[Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com>]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 05:27:02PM +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> >   | Registration   | 'Protocol Action', 'Expert | Describes the rules |
> >   | Rules          | Review',                   | for allocation of   |
> >   |                | 'First-Come-First-Served', | items that fall in  |
> >   |                | 'Closed-For-Registrations' | this sub-namespace, |
> >   |                |                            | if this entry is    |
> >   |                |                            | for a sub-namespace |
> >   |                |                            | (OPTIONAL).         |
> 
> I think different values for this field come from RFC 2434. It should be 
> mentioned as a reference here.

Indeed.  I'll remove most of those values, add text referencing RFC2434
and give a few examples.

> >   | Status         | 'Standards-Track',         | Status of the       |
> >   |                | 'Informational',           | registration.       |
> >   |                | 'Experimental',            |                     |
> >   |                | 'Obsolete', 'Other'        |                     |
> 
> I think you need to be more specific about what the status is. Is it 
> status of the document defining the namespace registration? Or of the 
> registration itself?

The description already answers that :)

> Section 7 and 8 need more text, as described by your editorial comments.
> I think this is a prerequisite before starting WGLC on the document.

Indeed.  I think we agreed at Philadelphia that the initial registry
content can be provided separately.  That makes a lot of sense, since
during the IANA review part of the RFC publication process that contents
might be taken out of the document altogether (once it's been
incorporated into the registry, and with authoritative definitions in
RFCs like 2743, what's the point of having a tens of pages repeating the
same material in this one?).

So I think I'll update section 8 to state that the initial content will
be provided separately.  We'll review that content on the list though,
of course.

I'll iron out section 7 in the next few days.

It'd be great if we could WGLC, then hold the document until we've
reviewed the initial registry content submissions, then send the I-D
to the IESG.

Nico
-- 
_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
Kitten at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten