ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Withdrawing sponsorship of draft-housley-tls-authz-extns

2007-06-15 06:16:44
<Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com> writes:

Thomas Narten wrote:

If the above text were in effect today, would it be sufficient to
cover the situation at issue here? (Now would be an excellent time
to consider updates/clarifications to the above text.)

I don't think so. The text allows IESG to override the allocation
procedures when they judge there is "strong IETF consensus" to do 
so.

The text is very much intended to allow the IESG to say "IANA, please
go ahead and make the assignment", even in the absence of having
approved the document. The key wording is:

   In order to allow assignments in individual cases where there is
   strong IETF consensus that an allocation should go forward, but the
   documented procedures do not support such an assignment, the IESG
   is granted authority to approve assignments in such cases.

The intention with "documented procedures do not support such an
assignment" was to cover things where by the normal rules (e.g.,
approval to publish as an RFC) aren't satisfiable, yet there is
support to assign the code point anyway.

I agree that the wording "strong consensus" is key. Perhaps that bar
is too high -- it was intended to ensure that this procedure was not
invoked in cases where there was real opposition to the code point
assignment. I.e., to be an exception mechanism rather than a common
occurrence.

While consensus may not exist to publish the docuemnt, that is not the
same thing as a lack of consensus for making the code point
assignment.

Thomas

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf