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