[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
On Apr 14, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
--On Tuesday, April 14, 2009 12:48:05 PM -0700 Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@xxxxxxxxx
Overall, this I-D mets my needs. Thanks!
One issue the I-D needs to discuss is how to establish additional
EXTERNAL-* mechanisms. That is, say I wanted to define EXTERNAL-
EXTERNAL-IPC. How are names of family members ensured to be
I suggest that EXTERNAL-* family members be registered in the SASL
mechanism name table under an Expert Review Required policy. I
not use "Specification Required" as that overly burdensome, and I
see any particular reason for the IETF to have a monopoly on the
of such mechanisms. (If I were to specify EXTERNAL-IPC, I'd likely
outside of the IETF.)
Uh, generally Specification Required is _less_ restrictive than
Expert Review, as it only requires that you provide a specification
rather than requiring approval from someone.
I note that RFC 5226 says "Specification Required also implies use of
a Designated Expert". Designated Expert is an alias for Expert Review.
Anyways, though a document can place all kinds of requirements upon
what an "Expert Review" might cover, I was thinking of a review
limited to the appropriateness of the request. That is, no
requirement (but no preclusion) that the Expert review anything
outside the registration request.
I would be fine with Specification Required. The difference doesn't
matter much (to me).
Meeting the requirement means providing some form of specification;
it does not require an RFC, let alone IETF approval.
That said, I agree with the approach, and with the notion that the
IETF needn't have a monopoly on EXTERNAL-* mechanisms.