Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 09:50:57 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1080979045.7799.1711705857235@ip-10-10-7-29.ec2.internal> Subject: Exported From Confluence MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_Part_7798_342651994.1711705857234" ------=_Part_7798_342651994.1711705857234 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: file:///C:/exported.html
In an email to this group on 18 February 2= 012 and on a page on this site, Leif Johansson proposed the not= ion of a formal IANA registry for Entity Categories. IANA registries = must be defined in an IETF Internet-Draft that becomes the basis for a form= al request to establish the registry. One of the clear advantages of = such an approach is that the Internet-Draft includes process and governance= proposals as well as information on syntax, semantics and other formal fea= tures of the proposed registry.
If the MACE-Cat group were to adopt and operate by as many of the provis= ions of such an Internet-Draft as possible, then even without (or prior to)= formal IANA registration we would have public, well-defined processes and = policies. The alternative would be to do the same definitional work, = but not cast it as a proposed IANA registry.
Leif had previously submitted an Internet-Draft for an IANA registry for level of assurance profiles. As he notes, that= document could serve as the starting point for a draft entity categor= y registry proposal.