> The problem is that the “IETF Review” policy is not restricted to > Experimental RFCs which seems to be the motivation of the document. > Informational RFCs can also be subject to IETF Review for example. The IANA > Considerations section does either instruct IANA to consider only Standards > Track and Experimental RFCs. I believe that this needs to be clarified in > Section 2, and the registry be marked “IETF Review – see [RFC XXXX]” so that > people asking for allocation be directed to the clarification of the policy.
I believe that no clarification is needed. There's no reason at all to put restrictions on registrations beyond what IETF consensus is at the time the registration is requested. Should IETF consensus be to accept a registration from an Informational document, that's fine. Perhaps it's not likely, but that'd be up to the consensus of the IETF, which is the point here. The non-normative text you cite describes what prompted us to do this. The normative text is the description of IETF Review in BCP 26. Barry _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
