Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:28:29 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
Message-ID:
<200706151328(_dot_)l5FDSTLc012425(_at_)cichlid(_dot_)raleigh(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
| Um, this train left the station a LONG time ago. RFC 2434 (and
| existing practice) have given the role of approving assignments to the
| technical/protocol experts that created that name space. That is why
| we have IANA considerations sections.
Of course - maybe my wording wasn't clear enough, but I didn't intend to
replace that, merely to add the safety net "unusual case" mechanism in
a different way than your proposal.
This is just as the IESG approves the vast majority of new RFCs following
the regular IETF process, but the RFC Editor can publish others if he
feels inclined (after taking advice.)
| But the buck has to stop somewhere, and in the IETF, that is the IESG.
And in this case, this is exactly the point. IANA is the
INTERNET Assigned Numbers Authority, not the IETF Assigned Numbers
Authority - and the code points it assigns and the registries it
maintains are used by the Internet as a whole, not just that part of
it that participates in the IETF.
| IANA does not make the decisions on what to assign and what not to
| assign, unless it has been given clear criteria when it can do so.
That may be as it is now, but it is not the way it should be. There's
no sense having something that we call an authority of it has no authority.
| In general, IANA does not have the expertise to make such
| evaluations.
I'm not sure I necessarily believe that, but in any case, that's what
advice is for - to obtain any extra information that's needed. The only
question really is who gets to be the final umpire, and this is a case
where it most certainly should not be the IESG.
kre
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf