> Regarding one point therein: > > When a document coming from an individual submitter makes an IANA > request that specifies registrant information, "IETF" is to be used, > as these registrations also come from the IETF as a whole via IETF > last call consensus. > > > Until a document is adopted by a WG, this is inappropriate and incorrect. The assignee and point of contact > should never be the IETF until a doc is adopted. Are you saying that you think an individual submission that is being sponsored by an AD in the IETF stream... is not a product of the IETF because it didn't come from a working group? If that's your contention, I strongly disagree. Anything that goes through the IETF stream is a product of the IETF and has boilerplate in the resulting RFC that says so. And those documents have IETF consensus that comes from last call, which has almost always been the case for many years, and is now guaranteed by draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational (approved and in the RFC Editor queue). Documents in the Independent stream are, of course, different, and this document doesn't apply to them. Barry
