*> explicitly require an IANA review -- perhaps that should be *> fixed, or perhaps we can rely on the RFC Editor's good sense *> when a document appears to require IANA actions). *>
Note that the problem is not just any IANA action... an experimental protocol that is outside the IETF may register with IANA. The bug is if the action for an independent submission is treated as a STANDARDS registration, subject to IETF consensus, etc. *> It seems to me that your request is getting close to a provision *> that says "the RFC Editor will not be stupid and will avoid *> acting in ways that are obviously intended to end-run *> established IETF or IANA procedures or otherwise against the *> clear best interests of the community". If there is consensus The RFC Editor agrees to not be stupid and to avoid acting in ways that are obviously intended to end-run established community procedures or in any other way act against the best interests of the community. In fact, come to think of it, the RFC Editor has been trying its best to accomplish this since before a number of you were born. Hey, let's codify Truth, Justics, and the American Way of Life! Bob Braden *> that such a statement should be added, and on appropriate text, *> I'll be happy to add it. However... *> *> john *> _______________________________________________ INDEPENDENT mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
