Re: I-D ACTION:draft-klensin-iana-reg-policy-01.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I'm a bit surprised that this version retains without comment the
retroactive clause that several people commented adversely on:

   In summary, unless the "scarcity" rules of Section 3 apply, this
   document updates all "IANA registration" documents and "IANA
   considerations" sections of documents to clarify the point that
   registration review is to focus on the issues above, rather than on
   concerns about, e.g., whether one protocol approach is better than
   another one.

Without arguing about the guidelines for *future* IANA Considerations,
I really don't see how we can reasonably make a blanket revision of
existing ones, that were presumably developed intentionally in their
present form.

Thinking about it, the last clause of the paragraph above is quite
surprising. Even for IP version numbers, it wasn't done this way
(6, 7, 8 and 9 were all assigned to competing proposals for IPng).
I think this clause is worrying about something that never happened.

I would be happier if the above paragraph said something like

   In summary, unless the "scarcity" rules of Section 3 apply, this
   document describes the way in which "IANA registration" documents
   and "IANA considerations" sections of documents will be interpreted
   in future, to clarify the point that registration review is to focus
   on the issues above.


   Brian


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]