On Mon June 27 2005, Thomas Narten wrote:
> What 2434 says about "IESG approval" is:
>
> > IESG Approval - New assignments must be approved by the IESG, but
> > there is no requirement that the request be documented in an
> > RFC (though the IESG has discretion to request documents or
> > other supporting materials on a case-by-case basis).
>
> (as an author) I agree that the "must" wording is poor and would be
> better replaced by something like "may".
Unfortunately, "may" has multiple connotations, so a simple substitution
could still lead to ambiguous interpretation. Not intending to step on
the RFC Editors' toes, might I suggest:
New values are conditionally assigned by IESG approval, ...
(assuming, of course, that that is the intent). "Conditionally" is somewhat
redundant; it could be eliminated. The wording ("values are ... assigned")
is altered to be more consistent with nearby 2434 text.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf