Re: [Ianaplan] draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-02 working group last call

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 07:55:18AM -0800, Eliot Lear wrote:
> >     containing the parameter values and a pointer to
> >    documentation of the associated semantic intent.
> >
> > This is slightly problematic, because there are registry entries for
> > things that explicitly do _not_ have semantic intent.  For instance,
> > the private-use ranges in many protocols are available in the
> > registry, but their purpose ie explicitly to have no semantics. I'd
> > suggest "and a pointer to associated documentation".  I don't feel
> > strongly about this comment; it just seems cleaner.
> 
> I propose to accept this change, barring any objections.  I am, however,
> growing concerned that someone from the outside not actually get a good
> view as to what a protocol parameter really is with our current text.  I
> don't want an RFP response to turn into a tutorial, but perhaps we need
> one more clear sentence to really make the point.


How about this, then:

OLD

   Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined protocol parameters.
   These parameters are used by implementers, who are the IETF's primary
   users of the IETF standards and other documents.  To ensure
   consistent interpretation of these parameter values by independent
   implementations, and to promote universal interoperability, these
   IETF protocol specifications define and require globally available
   registries containing the parameter values and a pointer to
   documentation of the associated semantic intent.  The IETF uses the
   IANA protocol parameters registries to store this information in a
   public location.

NEW

    Many IETF protocols make use of commonly defined protocol
    parameters.  These parameters define various behaviours of the
    protocol depending on the values of the parameters.  They are used
    by implementers, who are the IETF's primary users of the IETF
    standards and other documents.  To ensure consistent
    interpretation of these parameter values by independent
    implementations, and to promote universal interoperability, these
    IETF protocol specifications define and require globally available
    registries containing the parameter values and a pointer to
    documentation that established the registry entry (which normally
    governs its interpretation).  The IETF uses the IANA protocol
    parameters registries to store this information in a public
    location.

It's a little windier, I admit.


> 
> I think from a flow standpoint we would want to invert that, but the
> point is well taken.  What I propose is the following:
> 
>         ... Anyone may submit such a
>         proposal.  If there is sufficient interest, a working
>         group whose scope includes the proposed work may choose to
>         adopt it, the Internet Engineering Steering Group may
>         choose to create a working group, or an Area Director may
>         choose to sponsor the draft.  In any case, anyone may
>         comment on the proposal as it progresses.

WFM.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]