Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:
By the way: nothing says we have to put the actual updated registry into the I-D. Yes, we did it that way last time. But that is NOT the only way to transmit data to them. And I purposely selected the text in 4646bis-00 to *not* specifically state what form the update would take.
In that case, there would be no point in having a 4645bis, since the rules for bulk-revising the Registry could be incorporated directly into 4646bis. I'm not saying that's a bad thing.
I would suggest that it would be just as easy and/or better to specify that the LSTR (via his technical helper, aka Doug) create and verify the updated registry before forwarding it.
I completely defer to the "pros" who have lengthy experience working with IETF and IANA on things like this.
In fact, I've been thinking about text that Doug could use in 4645bis to manage the interregnum process and I'll send that to the list shortly.
-- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ RFC 4645 * UTN #14 _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.