> Section 16.4 requests the creation of a registry where > assignments require "IETF Review". ... > I don't think that the IESG would be okay with the > creation of an IETF registry without IETF Review. I don't know whether the > IESG has discussed that point. It has, and there's no problem. The IESG has objected to Independent Stream documents creating registries with policies of Expert Review or Specification required, because those commit the IESG to appointing a Designated Expert, with all the management necessary for that. But other registration policies don't commit anyone to anything, and an Independent Stream document creating a registry that requires IETF Stream RFCs in oder to register in it... is perfectly fine. Yes, the IESG has discussed this in relation to other Independent Stream documents. And, in fact, it's possible that a dmarcext working group that might be chartered might be the first use of that registry. > wouldn't describe the situation with respect to DMARC as the IESG being > proactive [1] given that there is probably significant deployment of the > protocol. Please note that I am not basing my opinion solely on the eight > domains mentioned above. I still don't understand what you expect to have done here. The IESG is evaluating this charter. If there's a change you want to see in the charter text, please clearly state it. If there's something you want the IESG to consider as it evaluates the charter, please be clear about exactly what that is, so the IESG can consider it. Barry