Re: draft-klensin-iana-reg-policy (Re: S stands for Steering)

[Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz at cmu.edu>]

On Friday, July 01, 2005 11:32:41 AM +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand 
<harald at alvestrand.no> wrote:

> But this too is a change; if the people writing the IANA considerations
> section had desired public review of requests, they would presumably have
> used "IETF consensus" as the registration criteria; to me, the choice of
> "IESG review" indicates that the writers of the IANA considerations
> section thought that the IESG was able to come to a correct decision
> *without* having to ask for an IETF consensus.

I don't entirely agree.  The definition of "IETF Consensus" in RFC2434 
requires an RFC developed through the IETF process _and approved by the 
IESG_.  There is no cookie-cutter policy defined in that document which 
requires consensus of the IETF but _not_ approval of the IESG.  If someone 
wanted to set a policy like that for a registry, they'd have to state it 
explicitly rather than incorporating one by reference.

On the other hand, my reading of the definition of "IESG Approval" is that 
approval by the IESG is required, but not any particular means of getting 
that approval.  The simple path of "requestor asks IANA; IANA asks IESG; 
IESG says yes or no" works fine, but so does following the procedure 
Margaret just suggested to Larry, and so does going through the full 
standards process.


> My suggestion for a change would be a bit shorter:
>
>   As an experiment, the IESG will send out Last Calls for all requests
>   requiring IESG approval that it wants to reject from <date> to <1 year
>   later>. At the end of that time, it will evaluate the result, and
>   either abandon the practice, modify the practice or make it a standard
>   procedure.

I like this, except that I'm not sure 1 year is a long enough period to 
gather useful data for this experiment.  OTOH, I don't really know how 
frequently the IESG sees requests like this, so I'll defer to those who do.



> I think that a blanket retrofitting of a new meaning on the "IESG
> approval" IANA considerations is a thoroughly bad idea.

Agree.

-- Jeff

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