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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barry,

I changed the subject line as this is not related to the proposed charter.

At 11:59 17-07-2014, Barry Leiba wrote:
>It has, and there's no problem.  The IESG has objected to Independent
>Stream documents creating registries with policies of Expert Review or
>Specification required, because those commit the IESG to appointing a
>Designated Expert, with all the management necessary for that.
>
>But other registration policies don't commit anyone to anything, and
>an Independent Stream document creating a registry that requires IETF
>Stream RFCs in oder to register in it... is perfectly fine.  Yes, the
>IESG has discussed this in relation to other Independent Stream
>documents.

Section 4 of RFC 5226 is about creating a registry.  My assumption 
would be that it would require some IETF action or IESG approval as 
it is committing the IETF to do some work in future.  My experience 
of an IETF Review is that it is a higher barrier than going through a 
review in the Independent Stream:

   (i)  I would have to find an Area Director to sponsor the draft; or

   (ii) Get a working group to adopt the draft, and go through the 
IETF process.

It does not seem fair to me to create and populate a registry and ask 
other people to put in much more effort than I would have to put in 
when requesting an assignment.

I'll respect the decision of the IESG.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy