from: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 25 November 2023 20:08
I'm not clear that there's any gap in our rules. The situation seems clear for IETF documents (if the IESG approves a document, that amounts to an IETF request to IANA). Since RFC2860 is the text of an agreement "on behalf of the Internet Engineering Task Force and the Internet Research Task Force" there is presumably no problem for the IRTF either. It's also a clear no for the Independent stream because it's not part of either the IETF or the IRTF. If an Independent stream RFC wants to create a registry, the IETF (or IRTF) would need to approve the request. RFC8726 rather cleverly (perhaps unintentionally) finesses this because in the rare case where this might arise, it says "The IESG will be invited to provide its opinions about the advisability of the creation of any new registries during its conflict review of the document."
<tp>
Ah yes, my literature search missed RFC2860.
My comment about the IANA website still stands. It would help me, and from my experience others, if the website pointed to RFC such as these.
I did remember that anyone in the world can ask for IANA registration, not just IETF/IRTf etc, but had forgotten the document about the ISE.
A further example that I omitted in my first post, is about XML. RFC with YANG modules are encouraged to include examples and that has been XML. Sometime after that started, I started seeing posts from IANA to WG lists asking an XML group to review the examples and the XML group always said that the examples were invalid and wanted changes. As far as YANG is concerned, the examples are perfectly valid and pass validation by tools but authors started to incorporate those changes to placate IANA.
What is IANA's justification for requiring this conformance to someone else's, not YANG's, rules?
What I now see is a lack of XML for examples and excessive use of JSON. (Will IANA find a JSON directorate to declare these invalid:-(
For me, XML is superior to JSON when it comes to illustrating the use of YANG and I am thinking that if IANA had not intervened, then I would still be getting XML.
Tom Petch
Regards
Brian
On 26-Nov-23 07:03, Joe Touch wrote:
> Arrgh spellcheck..
>
> …An RFC cannot create….
>
>> On Nov 25, 2023, at 4:06 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Why not use the no downref rule? And RFC annotated create a registry that it would not be qualified to register under?
>>
>> Seems obvious to me.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>>> On Nov 25, 2023, at 12:58 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2023-11-25, at 09:39, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, the IESG can veto RFCs in certain streams; my next search will be for any IESG statements about registry creation in RFCs that are not standards-track or BCP.
>>>>
>>>> RFC 8126
>>>
>>> I’ve heard about BCP26 :-)
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, this appears to give no guidance at all as to which RFC streams and categories can *create* registries.
>>> (It does address which documents can *register* under which policies once a registry has been created with such a policy.)
>>>
>>> Grüße, Carsten
>>>
>>
>
