Margaret sed: > Personally, I think that if the IETF doesn't want to give the IESG > the right to approve (and refuse to approve) the allocation of IP > options, then the IETF should update RFC 2780. for what it's worth (speaking as an IETFer, forment IESGer & co-author of RFC2780) - to me its not a question of the IESG having "the right to approve (and refuse to approve) the allocation of IP options" - its a question of process - specifically *how* should the IESG "refuse to approve" an assignment - thus its not a question of changing 2780 to remove that right but maybe it is a question of establishing an understanding of what process the IESG should follow (e.g. make a statement and subject it to a process along the line of a Last-Call) this is not that new a concept - ADs have done this in the past (see for example, Randy's request for input about PIBs and the process that was followed to see if the IETF should continue to work on CR-LDP) - I see no reason that the IESG could not do the same sort of thing note that I think that any assertion that one can not do a last-call wiithout an ID misses the point - the point being that the IESG should attempt to get an understanding of the IETF community's opinion on the IESG's conclusion - calling it a "Last-Call" is just using a common IETF term as a way to describe a process so that people can easily understand the concept Scott (also see draft-klensin-iana-reg-policy-00.txt) _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf