On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 10:06:26AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > 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. No one will deny that the IESG can do what the above quote says. If there's a question of "missing criteria" then do we even need Barry's I-D to resolve it, or can the IESG simply direct IANA as to how to resolve the issue? I do question the utility of the change, I proposed a clarification, and I would like to see the justification enhanced (e.g., can we have some examples of inconsistency?). I don't oppose the proposed change as such. Nico --
