I think this request should be in the hands of the DTN co-chairs or the author to add additional text to the document or have another document. I don’t think, as one of the two designated expert for that registry, it is us, the designated experts, to decide a new structure of the registry (while I do have my own opinion on how to do it). While it may slow down the publication of that document, I guess you could put that state and someone will follow up and I guess the draft will be in revised ID needed until that issue is resolved.
My 2 cents. Marc. > Le 20 oct. 2022 à 19:14, Amanda Baber via RT <[email protected]> > a écrit : > > Dear Bundle Administrative Record Types experts (cc: acme WG), > > Resending this question about a new bundle registry field in a document on > next Thursday's telechat agenda. > > If the document continues to include the new "Protocol Version" field, but > doesn't tell us to add the field to the registry (which also requires that we > be told how to populate it for existing entries), we'll have to mark the > document "IANA NOT OK." > > thanks, > Amanda > > On Fri Oct 14 20:23:02 2022, amanda.baber wrote: >> Dear bundle experts and DTN chairs, >> >> This document, listed on the IESG's October 27th telechat agenda, asks >> us to add an entry to the Bundle Administrative Record Types registry >> that would include a "Protocol Version" field: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-acme-dtnnodeid >> >> However, that field isn't currently part of the registry: >> >> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bundle/bundle.xhtml#admin-record- >> types >> >> We need a document that a) creates the field and b) populates it for >> existing entries so that we can list it as an additional reference for >> the registry itself. Can that be done through this document? >> >> thanks, >> >> Amanda Baber >> IANA Operations Manager > _______________________________________________ Acme mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/acme
