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

Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> Tue, 25 October 2016 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <kivinen@iki.fi>
X-Original-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: int-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABD6B12986B; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:12:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 TMNFQ_td9myb; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:12:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [83.145.195.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA3E81294D3; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fireball.acr.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id u9PICAW6013540 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:12:10 +0300 (EEST)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.acr.fi (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id u9PIC98R024925; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:12:09 +0300 (EEST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <22543.41081.600126.421923@fireball.acr.fi>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 21:12:09 +0300
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <1381a4cd611a4bd8a9f6657f49cf7efb@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <0c8d9a37da1648879577c72ce5b46ff1@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com> <22543.21340.576662.900794@fireball.acr.fi> <1381a4cd611a4bd8a9f6657f49cf7efb@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.5.1 (x86_64--netbsd)
X-Edit-Time: 10 min
X-Total-Time: 13 min
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/THijf0IYQb6apYbQkIDvqiKPDJw>
Cc: "6tisch@ietf.org" <6tisch@ietf.org>, "int-dir@ietf.org" <int-dir@ietf.org>, "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>, Amanda Baber via RT <iana-issues@iana.org>, draft-kivinen-802-15-4-ie@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-dir] A review of https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kivinen-802-15-ie-02 for INT-DIR
X-BeenThere: int-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This list is for discussion between the members of the Internet Area directorate." <int-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/int-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:int-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir>, <mailto:int-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:12:45 -0000

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.).

> Tero: Do you think you need assignments for use outside the IETF?

No. This is IETF IE, there should not be any assignments outside the
IETF. 

> Or that a value could be assigned without an RFC?

Most likely not, but expert review makes the early allocations easier,
as experts are usually experts in those registries they take care of,
and can say whether the document is ready enough to get early
allocations (they are not really early allocations as that case, as
early allocations only cover the rfc required etc cases).

When using RFC required, the working group chairs and area director
will make that decision. While we still have working groups, then
there is most likely enough expertise there too, but after WGs are
closed down, there might be issues.
-- 
kivinen@iki.fi