(Changing the subject and flushing most of the CCs including the IESG. They
will probably read it anyway.)
As the other co-author of 2434, I want to point out that the term "IESG
Approval" was not invented by 2434.
In fact, a simple-minded grep for "iesg approval" shows that RFC 2048, the
first MIME registration procedures, was the first to use it, 2 years
earlier; that only shows where I cribbed the term from, I guess.
Quote from 2048:
2.3.2. IESG Approval
Media types registered in the IETF tree must be submitted to the
IESG for approval.
(Historical note: This document replaced RFC 1590, which did not specify a
role for the IESG. 1590 was, AFAIK, done without IETF discussion. The
change in procedure in 2048 was definitely done with IETF discussion. Times
change.)
In keeping with the general tendency to let things be handled by others
when they can be handled by others, I think changing requirements from
"IESG approval" to "Expert Review" is a Fine Thing (and think that the IESG
should have the right to do that on its own, even when documents say "IESG
approval").
But I like the text describing the "IESG approval" part in 2434 just the
way it is.
What *I* would like to add is more guidance on how to write IANA sections
where you have multiple ways to register something; I dislike sentences
like this one:
assignments .... follow an Expert Review, IESG Approval or
Standards Action process.
because it does not show what the normal procedure is expected to be, or
what is a reason to choose one and not the other.
Harald
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf