Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sieve-notify-10

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:30:13 +0200

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call 
comments you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-sieve-notify-10
Reviewer: Pasi Eronen
Review Date: 2007-11-23
IETF LC End Date: 2007-11-23

Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has 
nits that should be fixed before publication.

Comments: 

Well written document, with only one nit:

The document effectively creates a new "name space" for
notification-capability values, and defines a single value
"online". Shouldn't this be included in the IANA 
considerations section, requesting IANA to maintain a 
registry for notification-capability values?

Best regards,
Pasi

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:16:29 +0000

Hi Pasi,
Thank you for your review.

[email-masked] wrote:

>"online".
You are correct.

>Shouldn't this be included in the IANA 
When I defined the "online" value I wanted to make 
notification-capability extensible, but I was not convinced that new 
values would be needed.
My current preference is not to create a separate IANA registry for 
this, but added it once needed.

But I would like to hear if other people have different opinions (and 
maybe examples?).

Regards,
Alexey