Hi SM,
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:50 AM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)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