Hi John,
Thanks for the additions.
Everything you say seems fine to me for the cases you are
focusing on, but I hope that any changes to 4020bis keep two
things in mind lest we find ourselves tangled in rules and
prohibiting some reasonable behavior (a subset of which is used
now).
4020bis is certainly not intended to prohibit actions we do now. AFAICS it
actually opens up more scope for early allocation that was not there before.
(1) RFC 5226 provides, as you put it, "a good spectrum of
allocation policies" but a WG (or other entity creating a
registry) can specify variations on them and, if necessary,
completely different strategies and methods. As long as they
are acceptable to IANA and whatever approving bodies are
relevant, 5226 is not a closed list. In particular, more than
one registry definition process has discovered that the 5226
language describing the role of a Designated Expert and the
various publication models are not quite right for their needs.
I am pretty sure that nothing in this document impacts on 5226 at all except to
define how early allocation works for certain allocation policies defined by
5226. You are correct that 5226 is not a closed list. However we may observe
that it is used in the significant majority of cases. I think that means that if
some non-5226 policy is agreed by a WG and "the relevant approving bodies"
together with IANA, then that policy needs to define its own early allocaiton
procedure if one is wanted.
(2) We've discovered in several WGs and registries that early
allocation is just the wrong thing to do, often for reasons that
overlap some of Eric's concerns. I don't see that as a problem
as long as 4020bis remains clear that early allocation is an
option that one can choose and, if one does, this is how it
works rather than appearing to recommend its broad use.
Quite true.
This document, therefore requires the WG chairs and the AD to be involved in the
decision to do early allocation.
Adrian