> 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, That's not the case currently. One counterexample is standards tree media types in independent stream documents. RFC 6828 section 3.1 on standards tree registrations states: Registrations published in non-IETF RFC streams are also allowed and require IESG approval. A registration can be either in a stand-alone "registration only" RFC or incorporated into a more general specification of some sort. That said, I don't see anything in the document at hand that prevents this. > 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. Seems reasonable. Ned
