Hi,
For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Services.
...
For IETF protocols, that role is filled by the
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Services [RFC2860].
Sorry, but I find the replacement of "IANA" by "IANA Services" throughout
the draft to be both ugly and plain wrong.
Ugly, because it reads badly in almost every sentence where it occurs.
Sentences such as "IANA Services prefers that..." are bad English at best.
Wrong, because as far as the IETF and the IAB are concerned, the function
is performed by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, abbreviated as IANA.
The draft doesn't explain, what "IANA Services" is or are.
But it doesn't matter: this document is about what IANA does.
One part of the document is now simply absurd:
9.1. When There Are No Actions
Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA Services
needs to know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience
has shown that it is not always immediately obvious whether a
document has no actions, without reviewing the document in some
detail. In order to make it clear to IANA Services that it has no
actions to perform (and that the author has consciously made such a
determination), such documents should, after the authors confirm that
this is the case, include an IANA Considerations section that states:
This document has no actions.
Um, no, if the document has no actions it shouldn't be published.
This needs to either revert to its previous version
This document has no IANA actions.
or for better style:
This document requests no actions by IANA.
(The other changes in this version are fine.)
Regards
Brian Carpenter