--On Sunday, May 26, 2024 17:39 -0400 Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It may be of interest that in some cases blocks of parameter values > in RFC 9542 and its predecessors back though RFC 5342 are assigned > under a policy called, in these RFCs, "IESG Ratification". This > provides for Expert Review and then, if the Expert approves or is > uncertain, the final decision is made by the IESG. See Section > 5.1.2 of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9542/ > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9542.html#name-expert-review-and > -iesg-ratif). Donald, Yes, and this is part of a problem I'm not sure whether ALLDISPATCH wants to dig into (I've had fantasies about a separate BOF). Carsten's draft, my draft, and your example above may all be indicative of a broader problem. Another part of the problem, sort of mentioned and partially addressed in my draft, is that there appear to be a growing number of topics in which there is tension between the value of trying to be sure everything relevant gets registers and getting high-quality review and engagement. For those reasons and, I gather, others with less sweeping possible implications, it seems clear that RFC 8126 is in serious need of reexamination and revision. Unfortunately, at least as I understand it, a draft revision for community discussions was promised over two years ago and has been promised and/or requested by various ADs several times since. The draft has not appeared and, if progress is being made, I, at least, have seen no sign of it: certainly there has been no I-D. So, can we either move toward a DISPATCH session to discuss and record issues that should be addressed in 8126bis and, to the degree possible, a plan for getting a draft of such a document, or a session of some sort devoted to the "IANA Considerations" question and issues. If the latter has to be a side meeting, would it be possible to schedule the ALLDISPATCH session in a way that allows organizing it and finding a good time? best, john p.s. to save some reading, at least until it is necessary, your comment and my draft are about the same idea: taking two well-known registration policies and combining them in a way that meets a particular set of needs. In the case you cite, it would be IESG Approval if Expert Review does not work out well. In the case I went after, it was dealing with the tension I mentioned above by allowing the would-be registrant to choose between "just get it registered" (essentially FCFS) and much more serious community review with the registry telling those looking at it whether the latter occurred. _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list -- rtgwg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to rtgwg-le...@ietf.org
