Re: [Ltru] Issue #54: section 3.7 requirements on maintainers of additional registries (Apps #7)

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov at isode.com>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
> Cc: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>; "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 5:23 AM
> Subject: Additional issues with 4646bis raised by an Apps Review Team review
...
> 7). In Section 3.7:
>
> >    Failure to maintain this record, maintain the corresponding registry,
> >    or meet other conditions imposed by this section of this document MAY
> >    be appealed to the IESG [RFC2028] under the same rules as other IETF
> >    decisions (see [RFC2026]) and MAY result in the authority to maintain
> >    the extension being withdrawn or reassigned by the IESG.
>
> It is not clear to whom this procedure applies. If it meant to apply to
> IANA, then it seems to contradict IETF agreement with IANA as specified
> in RFC 2860.
...

As a technical contributor:

This text pertains to a "maintaining authority" for a registry referenced from
the IANA-maintained "extensions registry".  The "this record" refers to
information maintained by that outside "maintaining authority" in the
previous paragraph.

I think the comment could potentially be germane in the hypothetical case
where one of these "maintaining authorities" somehow ended up being
IANA itself.

Randy