--Olaf
On 14Feb 2007, at 9:47 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I agree completely, including your conclusion.
Brian
On 2007-02-13 19:21, John C Klensin wrote:--On Tuesday, 13 February, 2007 17:23 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com> wrote:... So I think it's fairly clear that any RFC could create a registry, but if it creates a problem, it comes to the IESG.Brian, FWIW, my feeling is that, if the IANA and IESG have a good working relationship, the IANA ought to be able to say "this independent submission draft is about to create a registry, if you have any serious objections, say so" to the IESG and get (or not get) an equally informal response. Given a good working relationship, I don't see any need to establish a formal procedure for that, especially not one that needs to be reflected in the "independent" draft. And, of course, if there isn't a good working relationship, then this issue is rather far down on the list of problems that will need to be solved. In addition, as far as I can tell, ICANN can direct IANA to establish other sorts of registries, or to create procedures for establishing other sorts of registries. To do so consistent with the MOU, all they would need to do is to define those registries as not being about "Internet protocol parameters". For example, IANA does not today consider the database associated with ccTLD administrations to be a protocol parameter registry. As far as the text is concerned, I think this topic is best left alone. Speaking just for myself, of course. john
----------------------------------------------------------- Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
Attachment:
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ INDEPENDENT mailing list INDEPENDENT at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent