--On Thursday, 11 October, 2007 17:05 +0300
Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> Assuming that this logic is reasonable (and, personally, I
>> do), the question remains as to why the document deserves the
>> special treatment of IESG sponsorship, rather than turning it
>> over to the tender mercies and independent review of the
>> independent submission process. If nothing else, handling it
>> as an independent submission would remove any suspicion that
>> it was being given special treatment because one of its
>> authors was IETF Chair.
>>
>> I'm not strongly advocating that approach, just asking.
>
> The IANA rules in this case require a document approved by the
> IESG; otherwise, independent submission would indeed be
> preferable.
Strictly speaking, at least as I understand it, the IANA rules
(actually, the IETF rules imposed on the IANA) require IESG
approval of the registration, not IESG approval/publication of
the document. If independent submission would be preferable,
nothing would prohibit making that submission. Then, assuming
that the RFC Editor tentatively agreed to publish, the document
would be submitted for RFC 3932 review and the IESG could sign
off on IANA registration at that point.
That effectively requires the IESG to make a decision to
register at RFC 3932 review time, since doing otherwise would
presumably block publication of a document that specified such
registration, but it seems to me that is not a big deal,
especially in this case (where the registration has already
occurred as the result of the first IESG decision on the matter).
It may be, in practice, too late to handle this document that
way because of the discussion and IANA registration that have
already occurred, but, in terms of thinking about future cases...
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf