Graham Klyne wrote: > But the registration document is being submitted though the RFC ISE > stream, which does not receive the same level of IETF review as IETF > stream publication, and in the past registrations from ISE documents > have been restricted to "provisional" status. I understand publication > via ISE stream was at the suggestion of an IETF application area > director (I don't know who). (Beyond the permanent /vnc/ scheme registration itself, which I certainly support, but don't have a really strong opinion on:) I think this is symptomatic of a more widespread problem we are having: only the extremes of ISE stream and IETF consensus seem to be available to documents that support some forms of registration. It is the nature of some registrations that they only address a comparatively narrow set of users, so running the whole IETF consensus machine is not always appropriate. Still, where some review was achieved, it would be useful to have a weaker form of "this was reviewed" status. I don't have a specific proposal just yet. For now, I wanted to highlight this isn't an isolated instance. Grüße, Carsten