--On Tuesday, 13 February, 2007 17:23 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> So I think it's fairly clear that any RFC could create a
> registry, but if it creates a problem, it comes to the IESG.
Brian,
FWIW, my feeling is that, if the IANA and IESG have a good
working relationship, the IANA ought to be able to say "this
independent submission draft is about to create a registry, if
you have any serious objections, say so" to the IESG and get (or
not get) an equally informal response. Given a good working
relationship, I don't see any need to establish a formal
procedure for that, especially not one that needs to be
reflected in the "independent" draft. And, of course, if there
isn't a good working relationship, then this issue is rather far
down on the list of problems that will need to be solved.
In addition, as far as I can tell, ICANN can direct IANA to
establish other sorts of registries, or to create procedures for
establishing other sorts of registries. To do so consistent
with the MOU, all they would need to do is to define those
registries as not being about "Internet protocol parameters".
For example, IANA does not today consider the database
associated with ccTLD administrations to be a protocol parameter
registry.
As far as the text is concerned, I think this topic is best left
alone.
Speaking just for myself, of course.
john
_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
