<Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Thomas Narten wrote: > > If the above text were in effect today, would it be sufficient to > > cover the situation at issue here? (Now would be an excellent time > > to consider updates/clarifications to the above text.) > I don't think so. The text allows IESG to override the allocation > procedures when they judge there is "strong IETF consensus" to do > so. The text is very much intended to allow the IESG to say "IANA, please go ahead and make the assignment", even in the absence of having approved the document. The key wording is: In order to allow assignments in individual cases where there is strong IETF consensus that an allocation should go forward, but the documented procedures do not support such an assignment, the IESG is granted authority to approve assignments in such cases. The intention with "documented procedures do not support such an assignment" was to cover things where by the normal rules (e.g., approval to publish as an RFC) aren't satisfiable, yet there is support to assign the code point anyway. I agree that the wording "strong consensus" is key. Perhaps that bar is too high -- it was intended to ensure that this procedure was not invoked in cases where there was real opposition to the code point assignment. I.e., to be an exception mechanism rather than a common occurrence. While consensus may not exist to publish the docuemnt, that is not the same thing as a lack of consensus for making the code point assignment. Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf