Hi SM, On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:50 AM, SM <s...@resistor.net> wrote:
> At 00:05 21-08-2013, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> As alluded to above, there can be quite a bit of information needed for >> an application to be defined beyond the defaults assumed when a name is >> registered. There didn't seem to be any need to require such definition to >> be in an IETF document, but it also seems as though more information than >> what's needed with just FCFS or DE or the other lesser rules is appropriate >> either. >> > > I'll suggest Expert Review here as it is a lesser barrier. I'll defer to > you on this. > Thanks for your suggestion. After more consideration, I think I'll leave it as is for the reasons described, and see where the IESG lands on it. Cheers, -MSK
