Re: [Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - Sept 10th

Thank you for clarifying the intent.
I would suggest changing the last sentence by adding a word, to read:
"All such multiple registration requests require expert review."
My problem was that I could read the "such" as refering to either part of 
the paragraph.

Thank you,
Joel

At 02:46 PM 9/27/2005, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote:
> >Question: Is the last sentence of the second paragraph of 3.4 intended 
> to call for expert review of all descriptors, or only of descriptors 
> referencing different object identifiers from an already registered 
> descriptor with the same name?  While I find this verbiage awkward in the 
> other places it is used, this particular usage is less clear than the others.
>
>The intent of the paragraph:
>   While the protocol allows the same descriptor to refer to different
>   object identifiers in certain cases and the registry supports
>   multiple registrations of the same descriptor (each indicating a
>   different kind of schema element and different object identifier),
>   multiple registrations of the same descriptor are to be avoided.
>   All such registration requests require Expert Review.
>
>is to note that while the registry supports non-unique descriptors
>(but unique within their category of use), registration of a
>non-unique descriptor is to be avoided and, hence, requires
>expert review.  That is, if you want to register e-foo
>both as an attribute type descriptor and as an object class
>descriptor, the policy is Expert Review (instead of
>First Come First Server for other e- descriptors).
>
>Please feel free to offer a specific suggestion (e.g., text) to
>help clarify this paragraph.   The current text is the best I
>could come up at the time (and at this time).
>
>Editorial/nits issues noted will be appropriately addressed.
>
>Thanks for the review, Kurt.