< draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-09.txt   draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-10.txt >
Network Working Group M. Cotton Network Working Group M. Cotton
Internet-Draft ICANN Internet-Draft ICANN
BCP: 26 B. Leiba BCP: 26 B. Leiba
Obsoletes: 5226 (if approved) Huawei Technologies Obsoletes: 5226 (if approved) Huawei Technologies
Intended status: Best Current Practice T. Narten Intended status: Best Current Practice T. Narten
Expires: May 11, 2015 IBM Corporation Expires: May 12, 2015 IBM Corporation
November 09, 2014 November 10, 2014
Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-09 draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis-10
Abstract Abstract
Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants Many protocols make use of points of extensibility that use constants
to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values to identify various protocol parameters. To ensure that the values
used in these fields do not have conflicting uses, and to promote used in these fields do not have conflicting uses, and to promote
interoperability, their allocation is often coordinated by a central interoperability, their allocation is often coordinated by a central
authority. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet authority. For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).
skipping to change at page 1, line 48 skipping to change at page 1, line 48
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 11, 2015. This Internet-Draft will expire on May 12, 2015.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
skipping to change at page 9, line 49 skipping to change at page 9, line 48
and effort) discourage people from even attempting to make a and effort) discourage people from even attempting to make a
registration. If a registry fails to reflect the protocol elements registration. If a registry fails to reflect the protocol elements
actually in use, it can adversely affect deployment of protocols on actually in use, it can adversely affect deployment of protocols on
the Internet, and the registry itself is devalued. the Internet, and the registry itself is devalued.
In particular, working groups will sometimes write in policies such In particular, working groups will sometimes write in policies such
as Standards Action when they develop documents. Later, someone will as Standards Action when they develop documents. Later, someone will
come to the working group (or to the relevant community, if the come to the working group (or to the relevant community, if the
working group has since closed) with a simple request to register a working group has since closed) with a simple request to register a
new item, and will be met with a feeling that it's not worth doing a new item, and will be met with a feeling that it's not worth doing a
Standards-Track RFC for something so trivial. In such cases, it was Standards-Track RFC for something so trivial. In such cases, the
a mistake for the working group to have set the bar that high. experience can serve to motivate changing to a lower bar for
registration.
Indeed, publishing any RFC is costly, and a Standards Track RFC is Indeed, publishing any RFC is costly, and a Standards Track RFC is
especially so, requiring a great deal of community time for review especially so, requiring a great deal of community time for review
and discussion, IETF-wide last call, involvement of the entire IESG and discussion, IETF-wide last call, involvement of the entire IESG
as well as concentrated time and review from the sponsoring AD, as well as concentrated time and review from the sponsoring AD,
review and action by IANA, and RFC-Editor processing. review and action by IANA, and RFC-Editor processing.
Therefore, working groups and other document developers should use Therefore, working groups and other document developers should use
care in selecting appropriate registration policies when their care in selecting appropriate registration policies when their
documents create registries. They should select the least strict documents create registries. They should select the least strict
 End of changes. 4 change blocks. 
6 lines changed or deleted 7 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/