Cullen Jennings wrote:
The IESG does not approve the RFC editor RFCs but only checks
for conflicts with the IETF process - it's complicated to
explain but you can read about it in RFC 3932.
Thanks, yes, I knew RFC 3932, and there's also a draft under
discussion about these "independent" submissions:
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt lists all
relevant possibilities for the creation of IANA registries:
- expert review (that requires an expert and a mailing list)
It's a pain if the expert is MIA, and/or the IESG forgot
to appoint one, or if there's no volunteer.
- specification required (not necessarily an RFC)
- RFC required (that's what the WG DKIM apparently wants)
- IETF review (that might be what you really want)
- standards action (maybe you want this, but the WG doesn't)
- IESG approval, that's an oddity, there might be no document,
only a registration template, it's discouraged in the I-D.
"Standards action" is what the name says, only a PS will do.
"IETF review" would exclude independent submissions, and it
would guarantee an IETF last call with IESG approval. It
would still allow any IETF RFC (incl. experiments).
As far as I'm concerned "IETF review" instead of only "RFC"
is also fine - I don't see the point of excluding independent
submissions, but if you insist on excluding this... <shrug />
Somebody would have to check that RFC 2434 is compatible
with draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05.txt :-)
Maybe the 2434 name for "IETF review" is "IETF consensus".
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to