I'm aware of two other RFCs that also define terms like this: 4949 (security) and 8499 (DNS). The intended status for this draft is "Standards Track". At best, this should be Informational in the same way that 4949 is informational.
Neither of these RFCs creates a registry. As such, I don't see the need for the registry described in Section 3. If a registry is really needed, it would be helpful to include text that describes why the registry is needed. If a case can be made for the registry I'm also confused by the initial assignment described in Section 3.2. It includes a data element "Name", with a reference to Section 2.1 of the draft, but there is no data element "Name" in Section 2.1. Scott _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
