Nico,
On one point only:
On 12-Apr-20 06:50, Nico Williams wrote:
....
> The fact that this proposal neither adds nor removes information makes
> me thinkg it's at best just a matter of style. Couldn't the IANA
> implement this change entirely of their own volition? Why hasn't it?
IANA operates RFC-based registries under the rules of RFC2860 clause 4.1,
which seems worth quoting here:
> 4.1. The IANA will assign and register Internet protocol parameters
> only as directed by the criteria and procedures specified in RFCs,
> including Proposed, Draft and full Internet Standards and Best
> Current Practice documents, and any other RFC that calls for IANA
> assignment. If they are not so specified, or in case of ambiguity,
> IANA will continue to assign and register Internet protocol
> parameters that have traditionally been registered by IANA, following
> past and current practice for such assignments, unless otherwise
> directed by the IESG.
>
> If in doubt or in case of a technical dispute, IANA will seek and
> follow technical guidance exclusively from the IESG. Where
> appropriate the IESG will appoint an expert to advise IANA.
>
> The IANA will work with the IETF to develop any missing criteria and
> procedures over time, which the IANA will adopt when so instructed by
> the IESG.
We seem to be in the first line of the last paragraph, and therefore
IMHO Barry was correct to bring the discussion here. I hope that
IANA is watching this discussion and will contribute.
Stay well,
Brian
