In a slightly broader interpretation of that question, I believe
that having Independent (or even IAB) stream documents modify
registrations that are required, either by the registration
procedure or the registration itself, to be under IETF change
control is a bad idea. If we don't like that constrain, we
should modify the registration, not conduct odd Last Calls. I
would strongly support processing this document in the IETF
Stream as an individual submission (and, while that slips over
into the substantive part, approving it for publication and
modification of the registration on that basis).
I understand your comment about precedent. To that, I'll note that
RFC 6838 says this in Section 3.1, related to Standards Tree
registrations:
Registrations published in non-IETF RFC streams are also allowed and
require IESG approval.
That is, it explicitly allows Independent stream documents to register
in the Standards Tree. It would seem odd to at the same time forbid
them from modifying registrations (with, of course, the same IESG
approval).
Also, this document was offered to the IETF community, and the
community was not interested in taking it up. But there's a need for
it in some circles, and we've seen no expression of objection. That's
why I sent the authors to the ISE back in May. I think this document
is a good example of what the Independent stream is for, and I think
that RFC 6838 allows us to approve these sorts of things case by case.
As to precedent, if another document should come along and do a
similar thing, we would do a similar analysis and have a similar
discussion. If that one should garner significant objections, its
path would be different.
p.s. W3C is circulating a draft charter for a WG that might
affect CSV on the web. Because having a hard-to-change
Informational RFC and IANA registration that was inconsistent
with W3C recommendations would be a generally bad idea, some
coordination may be in order, especially to verify that the
current draft is not an end run around W3C efforts.
Thanks for bringing that up. I'll be sure to send this to the
liaisons, and make sure we're not interfering with their plans for
text/csv.
Barry