Re: [Ianaplan] A draft for your review

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric & SM,

On 9/1/14, 6:14 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
> I agree with you here: the use of the term IANA protocol parameter
> registry is sloppy. Let’s go with: Many IETF protocols make use of
> commonly defined protocol parameters. Implementers use these
> parameters. Implementers are the IETF's primary users of the IETF
> standards and other documents. A globally available registry contains
> the parameter values and a pointer to documentation of the associated
> semantic intent. This registry, the IETF Protocol Parameters Registry,
> provides this service to ensure consistent interpretation of these
> parameter values by independent implementations. Historically, the
> Internet Assigned Numbers Authority has, under contract, operated the
> IETF Protocol Parameters Registry.

There is a particular facet I think we want to make clear: there may
come a time when we need another distributed registry.  It's not that
hard to imagine.  If so, we will need to look at existing structures,
and assign/delegate accordingly.  Names and unicast IP addresses are
examples of protocol registries that have been assigned to other
organizations.

[...]

>> As a general comment, there is the following under "required proposal elements":  "associated references to source documents of specific policies/practices".  A plausible response would be one which could be substantiated with references.  Otherwise (in my opinion), it will look like the IETF is not comfortable with what it has written.
> On the one hand, we have a lot of references to IETF documents. On the other hand, if a casual reader thinks we do not have enough references, we can have more.
>

I may have already lost the plot on this one, but as Eric writes, the
document is sprinkled with references, and there is then a specific
question about references.  I could aggregate all the references into
that question, but the reason the references are where they are is so
that people can spot relevance.

Eliot