Subject: [nfsv4] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:55:38 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data-07: No Objection

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-nfsv4-rpcrdma-cm-pvt-data/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure how strict we usually are about this, but the guidance in Section
7.1 makes it sound like the proper registration policy is actually
Specification Required, not Expert Review.

---

From: Chuck Lever <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 16:31:36 -0500

Hi Alissa -

> On Feb 19, 2020, at 3:55 PM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Section RFC 8126 Section 4.6 says

   This policy is the same as Expert Review, with the additional
   requirement of a formal public specification.

And I see that the current document does request a formal public
specification for each new entry in the registry. "Specification
Required" would be consistent with the discussion in the current
document.

In spirit this does not seem like a change in a consensus decision,
but merely an editorial correction. May I simply update the text
in my document to read:

   IANA is to assign subsequent new entries in this registry using
   the Specification Required policy as defined in Section 4.6 of
   [RFC8126].

--
Chuck Lever