Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04
review-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04-opsdir-telechat-morton-2016-03-23-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2016-03-15 | |
Requested | 2016-03-11 | |
Authors | Zafar Ali , Antonello Bonfanti , Matt Hartley , Fatai Zhang | |
I-D last updated | 2016-03-23 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -03
by Vijay K. Gurbani
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Robert Sparks (diff) Opsdir Telechat review of -04 by Al Morton (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Al Morton |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 05) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2016-03-23 |
review-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04-opsdir-telechat-morton-2016-03-23-00
Co-authors, OPS-DIR, This is the OPS-DIR review (just assigned a few minutes ago) of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04 This draft revises the registration procedure of https://www.iana.org/assignments/gmpls-sig-parameters/gmpls-sig-parameters.xhtml#otn-signal-types and says: 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]. ^^^ Adding "Specification Required" appears to primarily offer the possibility to use a Designated Expert along with requiring a specification, and/or a Standards Track RFC (the "Standards Action" procedure). Is the "and" of these two procedures a logical AND, and therefore the combination of two is a requirement? Or, is either procedure sufficient? Just asking, maybe "Standards Action" or "Specification Required" is what you want... ^^ In any case, I don't see any operational issues. regards, Al