IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc))

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Fri, 18 July 2014 00:40 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 215F81B28E0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VIdt2sZWSG36 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x22a.google.com (mail-lb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D69751B28B7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w7so1481003lbi.29 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=YFzkymdX+kCEcLXMD37n8MXIAN2IaGeiBi1Lp2eWlJA=; b=t37yHGot/CTkROfkA6yvnTMYjAdUPiILHjs+VvtuRHYjpPkAB9UyH1wemhgiMkAEwy tL5u6DXhlxQ9aqYr8IEuuRLt+w+1qxNDd13b87muGOiV6QMv1I1xBKbAs1iYi4Tara2f DeU9EfGynhsfGE/m7hFmKGH17Spu17sOSZ7vBw/hFJLkaLGvQLLbsPE0A9N76FL9Yd++ E63tklh/tvviaAsWPenvlUPVovUWRtyp/1BPWa9DspzUs1kh4h4kyYE55mGsuoXA6okC lP57zwJW/NNuLlAB0HPJuqpjNNY4osawD7LWO6t7JHTFwb+E+KbY0KeF060ywAqPrUpu oWAQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.37.194 with SMTP id a2mr672610lak.29.1405644005029; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.123.10 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:40:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwY+718mC1kcFZV8Rb9RunntQRc=9U21MTiHX22tdjAX+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20140714164212.22974.20340.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140716100922.0ceba268@resistor.net> <53C70443.8020709@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140716161255.0ac7a6f0@elandnews.com> <53C71991.3040909@bbiw.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140716200958.0cb6d4c8@elandnews.com> <CAC4RtVB895qQam48dqpG7CX+YCxPp0-5Er8j_=NR-YexTQRtmA@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140717072736.0ddb14c0@elandnews.com> <CALaySJ+_R=kxdf3E94kA=+S2gHaht9vSrkPQYdREnsqdWLJGkw@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140717120908.0ddd9a80@elandnews.com> <CALaySJ+ND3Z0UX_i+dTi67RWH_ESVn+LyHyLQBSBJC5dxmL6Kg@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140717141709.0d26ea10@elandnews.com> <CALaySJLx0sdOxEPAFmyMuaE+xajBnOgAWxy3i63Y3VHPBc8e3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwY+718mC1kcFZV8Rb9RunntQRc=9U21MTiHX22tdjAX+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:40:04 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: PjOlZbGo-30sUInCVW58gsVbiXA
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+63a2p13tApNOB7TDQs2Lcz7woQ0-rvNcavgFJQQ0LOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc))
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013d165699bd1d04fe6cff78"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/C8guYjdGU51ZA3LRv9DbWmhnYRY
Cc: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 00:40:08 -0000

>
>
> > assignment guidance is for people to contact the IETF to request an
>> > assignment in that registry.  From the IETF side they would be some
>> > commitment to review the request.
>>
>> No.  IETF Review means that the request has to be made from an IETF
>> Stream document.  Such a document is being reviewed by the IETF
>> anyway, and the registry adds no extra work.
>
>
> For the sake of comparison (and hopefully clarification), what's an
> example of an IANA action that does create work for the IETF, such that the
> IESG would object?
>

I think I gave one a couple of times: creating a registry that requires a
designated expert (Expert Review or Specification Required) is what we've
objected to.  It commits the IESG to appointing and manageing one or more
DEs, without approval that comes with IETF consensus.

Barry

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email