I have Brian's changes queued up, as well as this one: OLD When a document coming from an individual submitter makes an IANA request that specifies registrant information NEW When an AD-sponsored individual submission in the IETF stream makes an IANA request that specifies registrant information Barry On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 4:11 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 > > >
