On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:20:37PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
I do not agree. To me, everything in 2434 is talking about what level
of documentation should be required to register a parameter (code point,
whatever you want to call it) via the IANA. The "IESG approval"
section contains nothing to suggest it should be different. To the
contrary, it expressly says that no RFC (ie: one documentation possiblilty)
is required, but that the IESG can request more documentation if it feels it
necessary. Everything is about documentation.
So if someone documented a code point in a registry with a scares
number of available code points which was actively harmful to the
entire infrastructure, as long as the documentation was appropriate,
the IESG should approve it?
Why then would we bother to delegate that kind of decision to the
IESG? If it's all about documentation, the IANA can do that level of
work. We go to a lot of trouble via the nomcom process to find people
who are technically competent and have the widsom to apply that
technical comptence for the Powers of Good. Why then should we charge
them to act like programmable robots?
I can imagine registries where all that should be used is to require
that the paperwork be shuffled correctly, but that shouldn't require
the scarce resources of the IESG; that can be done by the IANA. (And
we do have an option for that in RFC 2434 already.) So if the
protocol specification required IESG approval, then IMHO the IESG _is_
empowered to make those decisions. If you don't like the decisions
you make, there is a process to have IESG members replaced; it's
called the nomcom process.
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf