Benjamin - It is not my intent to engage in a debate with you. I serve as Designated Expert for a number of IS-IS registries. I consider it my responsibility to understand the technical content of the drafts which make changes to the registries for which I serve in this role. I do not look for or expect technical content in the IANA sections - I only expect them to be accurate in terms of the changes requested/completed to the registries. I have no doubt that we still disagree. If there is some consensus to make changes I will certainly listen - but if left up to me I would leave the IANA section as is. Les > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@xxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 6:21 PM > To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: David Waltermire <david.waltermire@xxxxxxxx>; secdir@xxxxxxxx; > lsr@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd.all@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-isis-segment-routing-msd-16 > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:24:31PM +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) wrote: > > Benjamin - > > > > > > > > Please review https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126#section-1.1 > > > > > > > > In particular (emphasis added): > > > > > > > > " The purpose of having a dedicated IANA Considerations section is to > > > > provide a single place to collect clear and concise information and > > > > instructions for IANA. Technical documentation should reside in > > > > other parts of the document…” > > > > > > > > I think what you propose is not consistent with the intent of the IANA > section. > > What about Section 1.1, "guidance describing the conditions under which > new values should be assigned [...] is needed", or section 1.3's checklist: > > 7. If you're using a policy that requires a designated expert > (Expert Review or Specification Required), understand Section 5 > and provide review guidance to the designated expert (see > Section 5.3). > > Section 4.5 (Expert Review) even goes into more detail, though I'll stop > quoting now. > > -Benjamin
