Advice for WG Chairs Dealing with Off-Topic Postings
This statement provides advice to Chairs for dealing with off-topic posts to Working Group mailing lists.
RFC 3406: URN Namespace Definitions
Registry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces
Issue: Review processes and criteria
The guidelines in RFC3406 on the requirements for registering new formal namespaces include several review steps (these do not apply to namespaces other than formal namespaces):
The RFC also provides a list of considerations that might be used in review by all these parties. The considerations in section 4.3 only apply to formal namespaces:
Since formal namespaces are often assigned to organizations that make assignments within the namespace, and the organization may add new sub-namespaces and functionality in the future, reviewers of URN Namespace applications cannot directly verify benefit, openness, uniqueness and persistence. Reviewers can only look at the organization's assurances that they will make assignments with those benefits or guarantees. Given the review that URN namespace applications already get, the current policy of the IESG is to follow the advice of the expert reviewer on approving such namespace applications.
The IESG suggests that a change to RFC3406 to reduce the overhead of these namespace applications might also be desirable.
This statement provides advice to Chairs for dealing with off-topic posts to Working Group mailing lists.
The IESG re-affirms that its reading of RFC 2026 is that any action made by an Area Director or the IESG may be made the subject of the conflict resolution mechanisms set out in Section 6.5 of RFC 2026.
This document describes the process that the IETF transport area directors employ when new congestion control algorithms that differ significantly from currently-published IETF standards are brought to the IETF for specification and publication as Experimental RFCs.
This statement discusses the process related to "individual submissions", publication of RFCs by finding a sponsoring Area Director to take it through IETF and Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) review. This statement covers both the the processing in the IESG as well as guidance on when such sponsoring is appropriate.
Under RFC 2026, the IESG issues Last Calls to the IETF community for all draft Standards Track and BCP documents, and for selected draft Informational and Experimental documents.
Show all