It appears that Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> said: >Hiya, > >On 19/08/2022 20:43, Warren Kumari wrote: >> So, it is perfectly acceptable (in my view) for it to have: >> >> Reference Name >> --------------------------------- >> a-cool-document foo.alt >> another-document foo.alt >> yet-another-doc bar.alt > >I agree that such duplicate names are acceptable in this >registry. > >I scanned the draft quickly and think it's good. (I'll try >do a closer read in a few days.) > >Only thing with which I'd argue for now is that I think >RFC required is a much simpler rule for the registry. Any >other option will require some designated experts with >some guidance for those DEs, and I'd expect it to be hard >for us to agree what guidance to include in the draft or >not, and I'd expect it to be hard to find DEs for this >registry.
I don't see that as a big problem. Assuming we agree that the goal is to have as complete a list as possible, the expert review would ask questions like, is the reference in a plausibly stable place, e.g. not a file:// URL, and does it describe something at least a little bit like a name system and not, say, random slash fan fiction. (That last bit is inspired by the constant stream of incoherent errata reports we get.) R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
