> In a slightly broader interpretation of that question, I believe > that having Independent (or even IAB) stream documents modify > registrations that are required, either by the registration > procedure or the registration itself, to be under IETF change > control is a bad idea. If we don't like that constrain, we > should modify the registration, not conduct odd Last Calls. I > would strongly support processing this document in the IETF > Stream as an individual submission (and, while that slips over > into the substantive part, approving it for publication and > modification of the registration on that basis). I understand your comment about precedent. To that, I'll note that RFC 6838 says this in Section 3.1, related to Standards Tree registrations: Registrations published in non-IETF RFC streams are also allowed and require IESG approval. That is, it explicitly allows Independent stream documents to register in the Standards Tree. It would seem odd to at the same time forbid them from modifying registrations (with, of course, the same IESG approval). Also, this document was offered to the IETF community, and the community was not interested in taking it up. But there's a need for it in some circles, and we've seen no expression of objection. That's why I sent the authors to the ISE back in May. I think this document is a good example of what the Independent stream is for, and I think that RFC 6838 allows us to approve these sorts of things case by case. As to precedent, if another document should come along and do a similar thing, we would do a similar analysis and have a similar discussion. If that one should garner significant objections, its path would be different. > p.s. W3C is circulating a draft charter for a WG that might > affect CSV on the web. Because having a hard-to-change > Informational RFC and IANA registration that was inconsistent > with W3C recommendations would be a generally bad idea, some > coordination may be in order, especially to verify that the > current draft is not an end run around W3C efforts. Thanks for bringing that up. I'll be sure to send this to the liaisons, and make sure we're not interfering with their plans for text/csv. Barry