Dan Harkins writes: > I guess I'd like to register an objection. I wrote a draft a few months > ago to address this: > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-harkins-ike-iana-update-00.txt > > That suggested making it "Specification Required". You mentioned that > someone was opposed to it being "Specification Required" but didn't say > who or what the rationale was behind that opposition. > > So I'd like to discuss this a bit. I prefer "Specification Required" > and would like to know what the problem someone has with it is.
See the orignal thread in the ipsec-list: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec/current/msg07428.html What is your objection to the IETF Review? > > IETF Review - (Formerly called "IETF Consensus" in > > [IANA-CONSIDERATIONS]) New values are assigned only through > > RFCs that have been shepherded through the IESG as AD- > > Sponsored or IETF WG Documents [RFC3932] [RFC3978]. The > > intention is that the document and proposed assignment will > > be reviewed by the IESG and appropriate IETF WGs (or > > experts, if suitable working groups no longer exist) to > > ensure that the proposed assignment will not negatively > > impact interoperability or otherwise extend IETF protocols > > in an inappropriate or damaging manner. > > > > To ensure adequate community review, such documents are > > shepherded through the IESG as AD-sponsored (or WG) > > documents with an IETF Last Call. > > > > Examples: IPSECKEY Algorithm Types [RFC4025], > > Accounting-Auth-Method AVP values in DIAMETER [RFC4005], TLS > > Handshake Hello Extensions [RFC4366]. -- kivi...@iki.fi _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
