Hi John, Thanks for the additions. > Everything you say seems fine to me for the cases you are > focusing on, but I hope that any changes to 4020bis keep two > things in mind lest we find ourselves tangled in rules and > prohibiting some reasonable behavior (a subset of which is used > now). 4020bis is certainly not intended to prohibit actions we do now. AFAICS it actually opens up more scope for early allocation that was not there before. > (1) RFC 5226 provides, as you put it, "a good spectrum of > allocation policies" but a WG (or other entity creating a > registry) can specify variations on them and, if necessary, > completely different strategies and methods. As long as they > are acceptable to IANA and whatever approving bodies are > relevant, 5226 is not a closed list. In particular, more than > one registry definition process has discovered that the 5226 > language describing the role of a Designated Expert and the > various publication models are not quite right for their needs. I am pretty sure that nothing in this document impacts on 5226 at all except to define how early allocation works for certain allocation policies defined by 5226. You are correct that 5226 is not a closed list. However we may observe that it is used in the significant majority of cases. I think that means that if some non-5226 policy is agreed by a WG and "the relevant approving bodies" together with IANA, then that policy needs to define its own early allocaiton procedure if one is wanted. > (2) We've discovered in several WGs and registries that early > allocation is just the wrong thing to do, often for reasons that > overlap some of Eric's concerns. I don't see that as a problem > as long as 4020bis remains clear that early allocation is an > option that one can choose and, if one does, this is how it > works rather than appearing to recommend its broad use. Quite true. This document, therefore requires the WG chairs and the AD to be involved in the decision to do early allocation. Adrian