Subject: [CCAMP] Request for a "Designated Expert" to carve "OTN Signal Type" subregistry

From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 02:12:34 +0000

Hi Lou, Deborah, Adrian, and all:

This is with regard to the recently adapted draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-00 (was: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-02).

As you know, the "OTN Signal Type" subregistry is currently defined to use the Standards Action registration policy as defined by [RFC5226<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226>]. draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-00 directs that both Standards Action and Specification Required policies be applied to this subregistry.

In the light of the above, can you please help us get a Designated Expert to review and carve "OTN Signal Type" subregistry?

Thanks

Regards … Zafar

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 02:53:35 -0000

Hello,

> This is with regard to the recently adapted
draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-00

There is no such draft in the repository.
I looked pretty carefully. Please let me know if I messed up.

> (was:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-02). 

OK, I can refer to that draft.
Interesting that the header of the file says "PCE Working Group"

> As you know, the "OTN Signal Type" subregistry is currently defined
> to use the Standards Action registration policy as defined by [RFC5226].
> draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-00 directs that both 
> Standards Action and Specification Required policies be applied to
> this subregistry. 
>
> In the light of the above, can you please help us get a Designated 
> Expert to review and carve "OTN Signal Type" subregistry?  

Not yet.
Let's wait until the working group has consensus, the IETF has consensus, and
both the IESG and IANA have reviewed the document.
DEs are not normally assigned until the moment the RFC is approved, or even
later.

Why do you think you need a DE now?

While I have the document open...

Section 1
   Why is paragraph 1 relevant to this document?

---

Section 1
   This document extends "OTN Signal Type" subregistry...

I don't think you are extending the registry, just redefining the assignment
policy.

---

Section 2

In defining that two assignment policies be applied to this registry you need to
be careful to define what you mean. Do Standards Track documents need DE review?
What happens if the DE disagrees? Do you mean that this is an either/or
situation?

---

As per Section 3.2 of RFC 5226, when a registry is defined to need DE review,
the defining document should include criteria for the DE to follow when making
assignment decisions. You need to write that section.

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 00:09:51 -0500

Adrian,

Thanks for being so proactive on this.  Your comments should be addressed 
as part of the normal wg process. I see no need for any AD action at thus time.

Zafar,

I'm glad to see you being a zealous author for the recently adopted draft. 
What AD action are you requesting /issue do you see?

Lou

---

From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 06:26:13 +0000

Hi Adrian: 

Many thanks for your quick and detailed comments. Please see reply and
some additional questions in-line.

Thanks

Regards Š Zafar

-----Original Message-----
From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Saturday, November 8, 2014 9:53 PM
To: zali <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
"'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Request for a "Designated Expert" to carve "OTN Signal Type"
subregistry

>I looked pretty carefully. Please let me know if I messed up.

It is a recently adapted draft, which we were unable to submit as IETF
flood gate is closed. But will be submitting during IETF week.

>><snip>
>Let's wait until the working group has consensus,

Done, 

>the IETF has consensus, and

I assume this will be post LC?

>Why do you think you need a DE now?

I thought that next step was to work with a DE to agree on how the new
registry look like.

><snip>

This is a good point. But the issue is that at present registry is defined
as "Standards Track" and this draft suggests we need "Specification
Required" policy to be supported, as well. Does this mean that
moving-forward the registry will be "Specification Required"?

>assignment decisions. You need to write that section.

Agreed!

---

From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 07:06:39 +0000

Hi Lou and Adrian: 

Many thanks for your quick review and comments. I see following as next
steps: 

- Once IETF flood gate reopens, we will submit the v00 (as is).
- In v01, we will address Adrian's comments.
- Push the draft to LC and wait for DE assignment/ comments at a later
stage (post LC?). 

Thanks

Regards Š Zafar

-----Original Message-----
From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sunday, November 9, 2014 12:09 AM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, zali <[email-masked]>,
"'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Request for a "Designated Expert" to carve "OTN Signal Type"
subregistry

>> In defining that two assignment policies be applied to this registry
>>you 
>> need to
>> be careful to define what you mean. Do Standards Track documents need
>>DE 
>> review?

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 09:00:19 -0000

Hello again,

> flood gate is closed. But will be submitting during IETF week.

OK. Understood. It was not helpful to me to provide a reference to an I-D that
does not exist.

> >Let's wait until the working group has consensus,

Really? The WG last call has happened?
Chairs, is this true?

> I assume this will be post LC?

Yes. No change to normal process.

> >DEs are not normally assigned until the moment the RFC is approved, or
> >even later.
> >

Nope. The document editor is supposed to work with the working group on such
stuff.

> >Section 2
> >
> >In defining that two assignment policies be applied to this registry you
> >need to be careful to define what you mean. Do Standards Track
> >documents need DE review? What happens if the DE disagrees?
> >Do you mean that this is an either/or situation?
> 

I understand there is an issue with the current registry and that you are
looking to make changes.
I am just pointing out that the text you currently have is broken.
You need to work with the working group to decide what you want it to say.

Adrian

---

From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 02:35:28 +0000

Hi Adrian- 

Thanks for your comments and input. Let us address your comments and work
with the chairs and the WG.

Many thanks, 

Regards Š Zafar