Re: [DNSOP] IANA Policy for SVCB

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 8:48 AM Martin Thomson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022, at 02:45, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 2:20 AM Ben Schwartz
> > <bemasc=[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> [...] any individual I-D is considered a qualified specification as
> soon as it is uploaded to the Datatracker.
> >
> > Do you have a reference that asserts this?  An I-D that isn't published
> > will expire, which would appear to contradict "permanent and readily
> > available".
>
> There is precedent (TLS docs), but I don't know if there is a reference.
>

Interesting.

In my role as a media type reviewer, for example, it's unlikely I'd accept
an I-D as a stable reference in a registration request except maybe for a
provisional registration.  I could be wrong, but my understanding of the
intent of "Specification Required" is roughly "permanently published,
though not necessarily by the IETF", so I think the bar is a little higher
than just the existence of an I-D.

As to the options proposed, I agree that Expert Review can introduce delay,
but given the above, so too can Specification Required (maybe worse, in
aggregate).  So I recommend Expert Review.

Finally, I just realized my DISCUSS on this document about the IANA
Considerations is redundant to Ben's, so I'm going to go clear it and just
support Ben's.

-MSK