Re: [Ace] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09: (with COMMENT)

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

These are all quite recents examples, so maybe the procedures are changing at the moment. I guess we as the IESG should be aware and figure out what the right procedure actually should be here.

> On 28. Oct 2019, at 16:31, Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:31:42PM -0400, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> Yeh, it's very common for authors to try to tell IANA how to handle
>> registrations, and I often push back on that as inappropriate.  There
>> are certainly special conditions that IANA should be told about, but
>> this is standard work-flow management stuff that ought to be left to
>> IANA.  I do think it should be changed before this is published,
>> probably just removing that last sentence.
> 
> While I'm not opposed to normalizing on a default procedure, I think the
> authors were just trying to follow existing examples.
> 
> RFC 7519:
> 
>   Values are registered on a Specification Required [RFC5226] basis
>   after a three-week review period on the [e-mail]
>   mailing list, on the advice of one or more Designated Experts.
>   However, to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication,
>   the Designated Experts may approve registration once they are
>   satisfied that such a specification will be published.
> 
>   Registration requests sent to the mailing list for review should use
>   an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request to register claim: example").
> 
>   Within the review period, the Designated Experts will either approve
>   or deny the registration request, communicating this decision to the
>   review list and IANA.  Denials should include an explanation and, if
>   applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request successful.
>   Registration requests that are undetermined for a period longer than
>   21 days can be brought to the IESG's attention (using the
>   [e-mail] mailing list) for resolution.
> 
> RFC 8414:
> 
>   Values are registered on a Specification Required [RFC8126] basis
>   after a two-week review period on the [e-mail]
>   mailing list, on the advice of one or more Designated Experts.
>   However, to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication,
>   the Designated Experts may approve registration once they are
>   satisfied that such a specification will be published.
> 
>   Registration requests sent to the mailing list for review should use
>   an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request to register OAuth
>   Authorization Server Metadata: example").
> 
>   Within the review period, the Designated Experts will either approve
>   or deny the registration request, communicating this decision to the
>   review list and IANA.  Denials should include an explanation and, if
>   applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request successful.
>   Registration requests that are undetermined for a period longer than
>   21 days can be brought to the IESG's attention (using the
>   [e-mail] mailing list) for resolution.
> 
> RFC 8447:
> 
>   Specification Required [RFC8126] registry requests are registered
>   after a three-week review period on the <[e-mail]>
>   mailing list, on the advice of one or more designated experts.
>   However, to allow for the allocation of values prior to publication,
>   the designated experts may approve registration once they are
>   satisfied that such a specification will be published.
> 
>   Registration requests sent to the mailing list for review SHOULD use
>   an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request to register value in TLS bar
>   registry").
> 
>   Within the review period, the designated experts will either approve
>   or deny the registration request, communicating this decision to the
>   review list and IANA.  Denials SHOULD include an explanation and, if
>   applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request successful.
>   Registration requests that are undetermined for a period longer than
>   21 days can be brought to the IESG's attention (using the
>   <[e-mail]> mailing list) for resolution.
> 
> [I stopped looking here]
> 
> So if we're going to change things around, maybe we should issue an IESG
> statement.
> 
> -Ben
> 
>