Re: des-die-die-die and adding IANA registry status columns

Does an informational column in IANA *require* the whole IETF review process?  It seems like a nice place to keep the info available.  

If maintaining it requires something more than an email from an authoritative individual (a "designated expert" perhaps?) then it won't be maintained properly.  If it's not going to be maintained properly, then it should be dropped.

I don't want to see this document held up for a "nice to have".

On Apr 5, 2012, at 9:43 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:

> <hat role="individual">
> 
> 
> I'm generally against adding work at the end of a document.
> I don't think the deprecated entries for preauth seem like a good
> argument for deprecated entries for  enctypes and checksum types.
> 
> One concern I have is that if we're going to add status columns we
> should  go update it for everything which is kind of beyond the scope of
> this document.
> I don't like expanding the scope of a document in IETF last call.
> 
> However my opinion here is relatively weak.

------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
[email protected], or [email protected]

_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg