Hi Brian, all,
We are watching... I was involved in some of the conversations that led to this draft.
There is inconsistency when IETF stream documents list change controllers for registrations and that is what we are trying to fix.
I have to get through all the mail for looking at other points being discussed.
--Michelle
Michelle Cotton
IANA Services
On 4/11/20, 3:06 PM, "ietf on behalf of Brian E Carpenter" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
