At 4:22 PM -0500 1/28/07, Sam Hartman wrote:
In general, it seems like the independent submissions draft represents
a careful balance between a lot of issues that we've been trying to
wrap our minds around. I think it does a good job and should be
published.
There is one area that seems to be missing: the interactions between
the independent stream and IANA. Can an independent submission
establish an IANA registry? How are expert reviews for IANA
allocation handled? What happens if an expert declines a necessary
codepoint? Presumably the same thing happens if IETF consensus is
required for something that an independent submission tries to
allocate.
I don't think this is a critical flaw; I think the document would be
improved by discussing these issues, but I think we can get along
without this discussion. One area where I do think advice would be
very useful to authors is in how to take a document that was a
protocol spec and thus requires IANA allocations and to turn it into
something that is simply a description of potential extensions to a
protocol without IANA allocations. I think that's the only way to
easily publish an alternative to an IETF proposal requiring IANA
allocations over the IETF's objection. Perhaps this is the wrong
document for that advice but it would be useful never the less.
Sam's concerns should indeed be addressed in this document.
Formalizing how the IANA deals with the IESG on new registries and
changes to existing registries has caused a significant reduction in
the number of muffed IANA registries. Independent submission RFCs
making additions to IANA registries whose elements are "RFC required"
are important to the IETF.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
