Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc))

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Barry,

I changed the subject line as this is not related to the proposed charter.

At 11:59 17-07-2014, Barry Leiba wrote:
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.

Section 4 of RFC 5226 is about creating a registry. My assumption would be that it would require some IETF action or IESG approval as it is committing the IETF to do some work in future. My experience of an IETF Review is that it is a higher barrier than going through a review in the Independent Stream:

  (i)  I would have to find an Area Director to sponsor the draft; or

(ii) Get a working group to adopt the draft, and go through the IETF process.

It does not seem fair to me to create and populate a registry and ask other people to put in much more effort than I would have to put in when requesting an assignment.

I'll respect the decision of the IESG.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]