I'm a bit surprised that this version retains without comment the
retroactive clause that several people commented adversely on:
In summary, unless the "scarcity" rules of Section 3 apply, this
document updates all "IANA registration" documents and "IANA
considerations" sections of documents to clarify the point that
registration review is to focus on the issues above, rather than on
concerns about, e.g., whether one protocol approach is better than
another one.
Without arguing about the guidelines for *future* IANA Considerations,
I really don't see how we can reasonably make a blanket revision of
existing ones, that were presumably developed intentionally in their
present form.
Thinking about it, the last clause of the paragraph above is quite
surprising. Even for IP version numbers, it wasn't done this way
(6, 7, 8 and 9 were all assigned to competing proposals for IPng).
I think this clause is worrying about something that never happened.
I would be happier if the above paragraph said something like
In summary, unless the "scarcity" rules of Section 3 apply, this
document describes the way in which "IANA registration" documents
and "IANA considerations" sections of documents will be interpreted
in future, to clarify the point that registration review is to focus
on the issues above.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf