JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
On 17:23 26/08/2005, Brian E Carpenter said:
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 13:08 26/08/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
just a remark here. In the RFC 3066bis Last Call case the IETF has
the capacity not only to "police" but to "impose" and "force". This
is the case when a memo documents a IANA registry. In the case of a
standard track memo, there can be an appeal before it is imposed.
It seems not in the case of a BCP.
Wrong. IESG approvals of a standards track draft or of a BCP are
equally
subject to appeal within two months.
Dear Brian,
I do not say that BCP are not subject to appeal, but that in the case
of a standard track an appeal delays the enforcement and that in the
case of BCP it does not. My sources are quoted below.
I have no idea what you mean. Neither IETF standards nor BCPs are
enforced by anybody - they are what the standards community calls
voluntary standards.
Brian,
??? we talk of the enforcement of the IANA considerations. When appealed
(to IESG and then IAB) when is the IANA to apply the IANA considerations:
- of a BCP?
- of a standard track RFC?
Again, I see no difference (despite Sam's message). A BCP or a PS are both
approved in the same way, both announced in the same way, and both published as
RFCs in the same way. They can both be appealed in the same way, and IANA will
set up registries in the same way. I'm not aware that we have written anywhere
*when* IANA sets up a registry - usually people are impatient, however, and want
it done as quickly as possible.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf