[Int-dir] [IANA #933491] RE: A review of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-02 for INT-DIR

"Amanda Baber via RT" <iana-issues-comment@iana.org> Tue, 25 October 2016 18:41 UTC

RT-Owner: Nobody
From: Amanda Baber via RT <iana-issues-comment@iana.org>
In-Reply-To: <22543.41081.600126.421923@fireball.acr.fi>
References: <RT-Ticket-933491@icann.org> <0c8d9a37da1648879577c72ce5b46ff1@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <22543.21340.576662.900794@fireball.acr.fi> <1381a4cd611a4bd8a9f6657f49cf7efb@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <22543.41081.600126.421923@fireball.acr.fi>
Message-ID: <rt-4.2.9-18754-1477420889-1517.933491-9-0@icann.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Precedence: bulk
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:41:30 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/EC0IIXxrcc69QCpdARnWU5aLdwo>
Cc: pthubert@cisco.com, int-dir@ietf.org, 6lo@ietf.org, draft-kivinen-802-15-ie@tools.ietf.org, kivinen@iki.fi, draft-kivinen-802-15-4-ie@tools.ietf.org, 6tisch@ietf.org
Subject: [Int-dir] [IANA #933491] RE: A review of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-02 for INT-DIR
Reply-To: iana-issues-comment@iana.org

Hi,

On Tue Oct 25 18:12:41 2016, kivinen@iki.fi wrote:
> Pascal Thubert (pthubert) writes:
> > CC ing Amanda for clarification on "RFC Required". 
> > For all I know,  with "RFC required", the IANA must also request
> > that the IESG designate an expert to review the new registration. 
> > The difference if I am correct is that "RFC required" adds limit the
> > use of the IETF IE only to address requests from IETF
> > specifications. 
> > Amanda: is this correct?
> 
> I do not think that is correct. When using specification required,
> then designated expert is also needed to say whether the specification
> is clear enough etc.
> 
> When using RFC required, then any RFC is enough, including RFC Editor
> Independent submission. There is no expert needed, as the RFCs are
> considered to be good enough documents.
> 
> From RFC 5226:
> 
>     RFC Required - RFC publication (either as an IETF submission or as
>         an RFC Editor Independent submission [RFC3932]) suffices.
> 	Unless otherwise specified, any type of RFC is sufficient
> 	(e.g., Informational, Experimental, Standards Track, etc.).

That's correct. The only procedures that require expert review are the Expert Review and Specification Required procedures. 

The next-most-rigorous procedure is RFC Required, which as Tero noted, can mean any type of RFC.

If you want to require an IETF-stream RFC without requiring a standards-track RFC, the procedure you want would be IETF Review. 

There are a few registries that use hybrid registration procedures. If it's what fits the registry best, you could state that the registration procedure is "IETF-stream RFC reviewed by an IESG-designated expert" (or "IETF Review with Expert Review"). 

Alternatively, if an RFC is not required, but there are specific requirements an IESG-designated expert should take into account, these could be listed in a sub-section of the IANA Considerations section. 

Best regards,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist
PTI

[Int-dir] A review of https://tools.ietf.org/html… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Re: [Int-dir] [6tisch] A review of https://tools.… Charlie Perkins
Re: [Int-dir] [6tisch] A review of https://tools.… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
[Int-dir] A review of https://tools.ietf.org/html… Tero Kivinen
Re: [Int-dir] [6tisch] A review of https://tools.… Tero Kivinen
Re: [Int-dir] A review of https://tools.ietf.org/… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Re: [Int-dir] A review of https://tools.ietf.org/… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Re: [Int-dir] A review of https://tools.ietf.org/… Tero Kivinen
[Int-dir] [IANA #933491] RE: A review of https://… Amanda Baber via RT