On Mon June 27 2005, Thomas Narten wrote:
What 2434 says about "IESG approval" is:
IESG Approval - New assignments must be approved by the IESG, but
there is no requirement that the request be documented in an
RFC (though the IESG has discretion to request documents or
other supporting materials on a case-by-case basis).
(as an author) I agree that the "must" wording is poor and would be
better replaced by something like "may".
Unfortunately, "may" has multiple connotations, so a simple substitution
could still lead to ambiguous interpretation. Not intending to step on
the RFC Editors' toes, might I suggest:
New values are conditionally assigned by IESG approval, ...
(assuming, of course, that that is the intent). "Conditionally" is somewhat
redundant; it could be eliminated. The wording ("values are ... assigned")
is altered to be more consistent with nearby 2434 text.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf