"Robert" == Robert Elz <kre(_at_)munnari(_dot_)OZ(_dot_)AU> writes:
Robert> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:28:29 -0400
Robert> From: Thomas Narten <narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
Robert> Message-ID:
<200706151328(_dot_)l5FDSTLc012425(_at_)cichlid(_dot_)raleigh(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
Robert> | Um, this train left the station a LONG time ago. RFC 2434 (and
Robert> | existing practice) have given the role of approving assignments
to the
Robert> | technical/protocol experts that created that name space. That
is why
Robert> | we have IANA considerations sections.
Robert> Of course - maybe my wording wasn't clear enough, but I didn't
intend to
Robert> replace that, merely to add the safety net "unusual case" mechanism
in
Robert> a different way than your proposal.
Robert> This is just as the IESG approves the vast majority of new RFCs
following
Robert> the regular IETF process, but the RFC Editor can publish others if
he
Robert> feels inclined (after taking advice.)
Robert> | But the buck has to stop somewhere, and in the IETF, that is
the IESG.
Robert> And in this case, this is exactly the point. IANA is the
Robert> INTERNET Assigned Numbers Authority, not the IETF Assigned Numbers
Robert> Authority - and the code points it assigns and the registries it
Robert> maintains are used by the Internet as a whole, not just that part of
Robert> it that participates in the IETF.
For what it is worth, I completely disagree with this approach.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf