Dave Crocker wrote:
Vinton G. Cerf wrote:
I want to clarify something here. IANA is not at fault. It submits
requests like this to IESG to assure that there is consistency in
standards work. In the past there have been attempts to circumvent
standards work that is under way by directly submitting requests to
IANA for assignment. I am not aware of the present status of any
IETF-related work that might consume any or all of the bits in
question in the IPv6 header. Larry has developed a reasonable method ...
"Fault" is a strong word.
Once upon a time, IANA had enough independence of the IAB/IESG to be
able to go against its wishes. It did this judiciously, but it provided
an important source of counter-balance to ensure a better degree of open
exchange. Although the staff of IANA and its relationship to the IETF
have changed, it's worth considering the publication veto authority that
IANA has given to the IESG.
You make two points about Larry's request. One is about the lack of
related work in the IETF and the other is that his own work is
reasonable. As I understand Robert Elze's point -- with which I agree
thoroughly -- the latter point is very nearly irrelevant, to this
discussion.
What matters is the former point about lack of conflict with existing
work,
Please read again what the IESG actually wrote.
along with the possible concerns of consumption of scarce
assignment space,
All numbering spaces deserve careful stewardship.
and clarity of his specification. As I understand it,
neither of these is an issue for this situation.
In other words, the primary role of registration is managing the
assignment space, not quality control of particular proposals.
That is the role of the act of registration, but the act of registration
does not occur in a vacuum. Registering a value for a particular
purpose enables that purpose, and for some critical registration
spaces we therefore have a documenttaion and approval requirement.
This is one of those spaces.
So, back to IANA:
The history has been that IANA "checks with" the IETF, via the IESG,
rather than gives a veto to it.
That history changed in 2000. See RFC 2860.
If the IESG comes back with a response that does not match the criteria
it is supposed to comment within, then I suggest that IANA should reject
the assessment.
In this case, they can't. See RFC 2780 (BCP 37).
Brian
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf