On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > >> If you would like to propose an alternative resolution including explicit >> spec language, then please do so in order for the TF to consider the >> alternative proposed resolutions. >> > > I'm happy to do that, but first I'd like to hear that *some* incarnation > of my proposal would be acceptable, so that I'm not jumping onto a > treadmill. > Cox could accept a registry provided that it permits the registration of key systems according to the following policies (as well as others if desired) as defined by [1]: - Private Use - Experimental Use - First Come First Served Since EME already calls for use of a reversed DNS name as a key system name, any use of these policies must already satisfy the Hierarchical Allocation policy [1], which ensures non-collision of key system names. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#section-4.1 Cox will oppose any registry that mandates that all entries satisfy a Specification Required or Expert Review policy (or equivalent); however, we wouldn't oppose using language that "recommends" citing a public specification. G.
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2013 03:52:39 UTC