> On 18 Feb 2019, at 1:35 pm, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> If the document says to see the registry for registration instructions, there had better be instructions there, no? >> >> Yes, but if we put the instructions in the RFC, people are likely to follow them -- even when they have been >> changed down the line. Also, it creates confusion as to whether it's necessary to update the RFC if they change. >> >> The text we're discussing is sourced from RC8288: >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8288#section-4.2 >> ... which didn't have any such discussion around it. If we're going to continue this, I'd like to hear from IANA >> itself about what level of instruction it'd like. As I've said, the last time around (8288), I got feedback from them >> that such a level of detail in the RFC was counterproductive, and that we could trust folks -- and our >> process -- to do the right thing. > > I agree with all that, but that still misses the point: > When someone reads in the RFC that they should follow the instructions > in the registry, and they go look at the registry and see nothing, > what are they to do? Because, by the time this becomes an RFC, I (the expert of the registry, IESG still willing), will work with IANA to get that set up. Probably during AUTH48. -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
