On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:43 AM RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel) <rfc-ise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello IETF Community, > > Several people have recently asked me what the policy is for creating or > modifying IANA registries using documents in the Independent Submissions > Stream, and from time to time a document in the stream requests allocation > of a code point from an existing registry. > > This document is an attempt to describe how I will act (as Independent > Submissions Editor) when I am asked to publish such documents. > > I would very much appreciate comments and thoughts. Thank you very much for writing this. I do have a question... "RFC8126 - IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126) lists "IESG Approval" as one of the possibilities for a registry. Snippet: "New assignments may be approved by the IESG. Although there is no requirement that the request be documented in an RFC, the IESG has the discretion to request documents or other supporting materials on a case-by-case basis. IESG Approval is not intended to be used often or as a "common case"; indeed, it has seldom been used in practice." -- this then lists a few cases, including RFC6275 and RFC5771. RFC8126 goes on to say: "..., it is intended to be available in conjunction with other policies as a fall-back mechanism in the case where one of the other allowable approval mechanisms cannot be employed in a timely fashion or for some other compelling reason." Your draft specifically says that "a registry whose policy is "IETF Review" or "Standards Action" [RFC8126] is not available to Independent Stream documents.", but doesn't mention what happens with "IESG Approval" registries. I would assume that these are also not available to IS documents, but in my view it would be entirely appropriate for the ISE to be able to *request* that the IESG approve allocation. In my *personal* view, a request from the ISE for allocation under the IESG Approval procedure should be given extra weight. Whatever the case, I think that the document should cover the other cases as well. I'd also like to echo Andy's suggestion that you remove 'current' (unless there is a good reason that simply hasn't occurred to us :-)) W > > Best, > Adrian > -- > Adrian Farrel (ISE), > rfc-ise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > -----Original Message----- > From: I-D-Announce <i-d-announce-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of > internet-drafts@xxxxxxxx > Sent: 13 August 2019 12:24 > To: i-d-announce@xxxxxxxx > Subject: I-D Action: draft-ise-iana-policy-00.txt > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > Title : How Requests for IANA Action Will be Handled on > the Independent Stream > Author : Adrian Farrel > Filename : draft-ise-iana-policy-00.txt > Pages : 5 > Date : 2019-08-13 > > Abstract: > The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) maintains registries > to track codepoints used by protocols defined by the IETF and > documented in RFCs developed on the IETF Stream. > > The Independent Submissions Stream is another source of documents > that can be published as RFCs. This stream is under the care of the > Independent Submissions Editor (ISE). > > This document updates RFC 4846 by describing how the current ISE will > handle documents in the Independent Submissions Stream that request > actions from the IANA. Nothing in this document changes existing > IANA registries and their allocation policies. > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ise-iana-policy/ > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ise-iana-policy-00 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ise-iana-policy-00 > > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf
