Adrian,
You haven't yet addressed the point that Warren and I both made that you should remove the word "current" from the draft.
Cheers,
Andy
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 2:36 PM Warren Kumari <warren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 1:17 PM RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel)
<rfc-ise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Warren and Ned on the same email response.
>
>
[SNIP]
>
> I am particularly enthusiastic to avoid two things:
> 1. Precedent influencing my policy. Mistakes of the past shall not
> determine what we do tomorrow.
> 2. Imposing anything on IETF policies.
>
> I believe that the text that Warren quotes is clear about the cases under
> which "IESG Approval" may be used. Furthermore, I think that this document
> is clear that "Documents proceeding from the Independent Stream will
> always follow the assignment policies defined for the registries from
> which they request allocations."
>
> To me that says that IS documents *can* request code points from "IESG
> Approval" registries, but (of course) such requests would be subject to
> IESG review. You might like to think that IS documents would be given
> extra weight in such considerations, but I could not comment. It would
> certainly not be for me to write down how I think the IESG will behave!
>
> I think section 2 lists all registry types that are not available (so the
> others, including "IESG Approval," are, by default). I think section 3
> lists the only allocation policies that could be used for new registries
> (in the rare case that they are created) and "IESG Approval" is not listed
> (because, of course, the ISE cannot tell the IESG what to do).
>
> So, I'm not convinced anything extra needs to be written.
Ok, fair 'nuff.
W
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> --
> Adrian Farrel (ISE),
> rfc-ise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
--
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
