Re: Role of IANA in approving assignments

[Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>]

>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Elz <kre at munnari.OZ.AU> writes:

    Robert>     Date:        Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:28:29 -0400
    Robert>     From:        Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com>
    Robert>     Message-ID:  <200706151328.l5FDSTLc012425 at cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>

    Robert>   | Um, this train left the station a LONG time ago. RFC 2434 (and
    Robert>   | existing practice) have given the role of approving assignments to the
    Robert>   | technical/protocol experts that created that name space. That is why
    Robert>   | we have IANA considerations sections.

    Robert> Of course - maybe my wording wasn't clear enough, but I didn't intend to
    Robert> replace that, merely to add the safety net "unusual case" mechanism in
    Robert> a different way than your proposal.

    Robert> This is just as the IESG approves the vast majority of new RFCs following
    Robert> the regular IETF process, but the RFC Editor can publish others if he
    Robert> feels inclined (after taking advice.)

    Robert>   | But the buck has to stop somewhere, and in the IETF, that is the IESG.

    Robert> And in this case, this is exactly the point.   IANA is the
    Robert> INTERNET Assigned Numbers Authority, not the IETF Assigned Numbers
    Robert> Authority - and the code points it assigns and the registries it
    Robert> maintains are used by the Internet as a whole, not just that part of
    Robert> it that participates in the IETF.

For what it is worth, I completely disagree with this approach.


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