Re: IETF ldapbis WG Last Call: draft-ietf-ldapbis-iana-04.txt

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

At 10:19 AM 2001-11-29, Ryan Moats wrote:
>===Editorial points===

Noted for later review.

>===Technical issues===
>
>1. Several searches on the ldapbis mailing archives failed to show any
>discussion on the limits on protocol descriptors and option strings.
>I for one am uncomfortable with applying such limits without more discussion.
>Rather, once the requester has met the "SHOULD" consideration, I don't
>think IANA should be given the right to arbitrarily refuse a request just
>because of length. 

Well, I would argue that IANA should have the right to refuse
a request solely the item is too long.  What this sentence does,
is give the requester and the IANA guidance as to what lengths
MAY be considered too long.

>2. In section 5.3, there a reference to a change control request.
>It is not clear from the rest of the document what the process is for
>the change control request triggering a specification update or IESG
>asserting ownership. I think this needs to be addressed to provide some
>guidance to requesters (both for initial requests and subsequent requests).

I think the last sentence of 5.3 needs to be replaced with:
  For registrations owned by the IESG, the objections SHOULD
  be addressed by initiating a request for Expert Review.      

  The form of these requests is ad hoc but MUST include the 
  specific objections to be reviewed and SHOULD contain
  (directly or by reference) materials supporting the
  objections.

Does this address your concern(s)?