>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Elz <kre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Robert> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:28:29 -0400
Robert> From: Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx>
Robert> Message-ID: <200706151328.l5FDSTLc012425@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Robert> | Um, this train left the station a LONG time ago. RFC 2434 (and
Robert> | existing practice) have given the role of approving assignments to the
Robert> | technical/protocol experts that created that name space. That is why
Robert> | we have IANA considerations sections.
Robert> Of course - maybe my wording wasn't clear enough, but I didn't intend to
Robert> replace that, merely to add the safety net "unusual case" mechanism in
Robert> a different way than your proposal.
Robert> This is just as the IESG approves the vast majority of new RFCs following
Robert> the regular IETF process, but the RFC Editor can publish others if he
Robert> feels inclined (after taking advice.)
Robert> | But the buck has to stop somewhere, and in the IETF, that is the IESG.
Robert> And in this case, this is exactly the point. IANA is the
Robert> INTERNET Assigned Numbers Authority, not the IETF Assigned Numbers
Robert> Authority - and the code points it assigns and the registries it
Robert> maintains are used by the Internet as a whole, not just that part of
Robert> it that participates in the IETF.
For what it is worth, I completely disagree with this approach.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf