Telechat Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry
Requested rev. 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
Draft last updated 2016-03-23
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Vijay 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
Review review-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-04-opsdir-telechat-morton-2016-03-23
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2016-03-23


Co-authors, OPS-DIR,

This is the OPS-DIR review (just assigned a few minutes ago) of

This draft revises the registration procedure of

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" 

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.