All,
To address some misunderstandings of IANA's role in this action, Dr.
Roberts requested a hop-by-hop option number from section 5b in the
following registry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-parameters.
Currently, the registration rule for this particular registry is IESG
Approval, described in RFC 2780. Not all IANA registries require IESG
approval for parameter assignment.
IANA forwarded the request to the IESG for review as required by the RFC,
and then informed Dr. Roberts of the decision. The notification is the
"IANA Action" referenced in the subject line. Per the RFC, IANA did not
have a decision-making role in this request.
Regards,
-Barbara
Barbara Roseman
Operations Manager, IANA
barbara.roseman@xxxxxxxxx
At 07:58 AM 6/27/2005 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
Vinton G. Cerf wrote:
I want to clarify something here. IANA is not at fault. It submits
requests like this to IESG to assure that there is consistency in
standards work. In the past there have been attempts to circumvent
standards work that is under way by directly submitting requests to IANA
for assignment. I am not aware of the present status of any IETF-related
work that might consume any or all of the bits in question in the IPv6
header. Larry has developed a reasonable method ...
"Fault" is a strong word.
Once upon a time, IANA had enough independence of the IAB/IESG to be able
to go against its wishes. It did this judiciously, but it provided an
important source of counter-balance to ensure a better degree of open
exchange. Although the staff of IANA and its relationship to the IETF have
changed, it's worth considering the publication veto authority that IANA
has given to the IESG.
You make two points about Larry's request. One is about the lack of
related work in the IETF and the other is that his own work is
reasonable. As I understand Robert Elze's point -- with which I agree
thoroughly -- the latter point is very nearly irrelevant, to this discussion.
What matters is the former point about lack of conflict with existing
work, along with the possible concerns of consumption of scarce assignment
space, and clarity of his specification. As I understand it, neither of
these is an issue for this situation.
In other words, the primary role of registration is managing the
assignment space, not quality control of particular proposals.
So, back to IANA:
The history has been that IANA "checks with" the IETF, via the IESG,
rather than gives a veto to it.
If the IESG comes back with a response that does not match the criteria it
is supposed to comment within, then I suggest that IANA should reject the
assessment.
--
d/
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf