Re: RFC 2434 term "IESG approval" (Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option)

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Scott Bradner wrote:
> > I agree that this would be a reasonable process, but wouldn't that be 
> > "IETF Consensus" (an entirely separate choice in RFC 2434 from IESG 
> > Approval)?
>
>
> see RFC 2434 
>       IETF Consensus - New values are assigned through the IETF
>            consensus process. Specifically, new assignments are made via
>            RFCs approved by the IESG.
>
> note that IETF Consensus specifically requires an RFC approval
>
> on the other hand "IESG Approval" specifically does not require a RFC
>       IESG Approval - New assignments must be approved by the IESG, but
>            there is no requirement that the request be documented in an
>            RFC
>
> so a process by which the IESG determines if the IETF community 
> agrees with a decision to reject an assignment request which is
> not done by ID/RFC is not the same thing as "IETF Consensus" in
> RFC 2434
>
> fwiw - saying that the IESG should check with the community should
> be a simple concept to understand - but maybe I'm wrong

It's not a hard concept. It just isn't mentioned or implied in RFC 2780.

   Brian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf