> -----Original Message----- > From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 4:18 AM > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > Cc: draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483...@ietf.org; regext-cha...@ietf.org; > regext@ietf.org; Jasdip Singh <jasd...@arin.net> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-regext- > rfc7483bis-04: (with COMMENT) > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click > links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content > is safe. > > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-regext-rfc7483bis-04: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory > paragraph, however.)
[SAH] [snip] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I concur with Alissa's observation. This is a "bis" document, after all. > > Thanks for Section 11. > > Section 10.1 is an update to an existing media type registration, not a new > one. Therefore: > > * Shouldn't this become the referenced document? Or is RFC 7483 still > controlling for this registration? * If the latter, should this section be > deleted? > * If the former, should the registration still mention WEIRDS, or should it be > updated to REGEXT? [SAH] My preference? Update to note that this new RFC is the appropriate reference (I think I need to do that for ALL the IANA stuff), and reference REGEXT. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
