Re: [dccp] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dccp-spec-13.txt

[Allison Mankin <mankin at psg.com>]

Eddie, all,

> I am happy to remove that sentence.  Of course I wish there
> had been a comment
> when that sentence was added; it was discussed on the list! :)

I thought I was following the mail stream well, so I apologize for
not noticing that line was discussed.  It should have caused my
ears to prick up, really :)  This is the kind of moment when Bilbo
Baggins's "too little butter scraped over too much bread" seems too
apt.

> I had imagined the "discretion" would involve IANA
> communicating with someone
> else (dccp-wg or ADs), much as IANA is currently going to
> contact me on every> Service Code request.

Well, IANA will, by human nature, do this when there's a problem.
Even with FCFS registries, the ADs get questions from
IANA when there are problems.  It occurs to me we could write
at the top of the IANA Considerations:

  The IANA should feel free to contact the DCCP Expert Reviewer
  with questions on any registry, regardless of the registry
  policy, for clarification, or if there is a problem with
  a request.

This way IANA actually asks someone who is likely to give
reasonable guidance.

Don't do another rev - we're already working with RFC Editor directly
rather than their using the i-d.  But what do you think of the sentence?

This is all constructive, by the way!

Allison