On 11-Apr-20 07:42, Joseph Touch wrote: > > >> On Apr 10, 2020, at 12:11 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> 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?’ > > No, but that’s not clear from the text. > > I think it’d be fine for the text to just be more clear that this is “individual submission sponsored by an AD”. I think the document should open with a clear scope statement like: This document applies only to RFCs approved in the IETF Stream [RFC7841]. And perhaps: OLD: IANA is asked to check compliance with this and to ask the responsible AD in cases where this practice is not followed. NEW: IANA is asked to check compliance with this when reviewing IETF Stream drafts and to query the responsible AD in cases where this practice is not followed. Stay well, Brian > >> Documents in the Independent stream are, of course, different, and >> this document doesn't apply to them. > > Understood; it’s just that the current text is vague and easy to misapply out of context. > > Joe >
