>Question: Is the last sentence of the second paragraph of 3.4 intended
to call for expert review of all descriptors, or only of descriptors
referencing different object identifiers from an already registered
descriptor with the same name? While I find this verbiage awkward in the
other places it is used, this particular usage is less clear than the others.
The intent of the paragraph:
While the protocol allows the same descriptor to refer to different
object identifiers in certain cases and the registry supports
multiple registrations of the same descriptor (each indicating a
different kind of schema element and different object identifier),
multiple registrations of the same descriptor are to be avoided.
All such registration requests require Expert Review.
is to note that while the registry supports non-unique descriptors
(but unique within their category of use), registration of a
non-unique descriptor is to be avoided and, hence, requires
expert review. That is, if you want to register e-foo
both as an attribute type descriptor and as an object class
descriptor, the policy is Expert Review (instead of
First Come First Server for other e- descriptors).
Please feel free to offer a specific suggestion (e.g., text) to
help clarify this paragraph. The current text is the best I
could come up at the time (and at this time).
Editorial/nits issues noted will be appropriately addressed.
Thanks for the review, Kurt.