At 1:10 PM +1300 3/18/10, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >Ah, yes, Paul is quite correct. My implicit assumption was >that such keywords would be added to an IANA registry only >in as far as they echo IETF standards track documents (including >the deprecation or obsolescence of such documents). Of course, >IANA itself cannot add normative requirements - only an IETF >standards action can do that.
But even then, there are problems. Most IANA registries can apply to more than one RFC. If Registry A is created by RFC X, and RFC X is updated by RFC Y, everyone understands that the registry applies to both RFC X and RFC Y. But if Y introduces different "mandatoryness", what does it mean for compliance to RFC X? Does one clone Registry A into Ax and Ay? The basic idea of this draft puts the compliance wording in IANA registries instead of in the RFCs themselves. This is fine for single-RFC registries, but falls apart completely for registries that apply to more than one. There is no need for this: let RFCs continue to define compliance to the RFC. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
