Re: [Rfced-future] Comments on draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-12

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 3/12/22 12:37 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 12:07:22PM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 3/11/22 7:19 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> --On Thursday, March 10, 2022 13:40 -0800 Benjamin Kaduk
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> "This document requires that the RPC document registry value
>>>>>> assignments made by IANA."
>>>>>
>>>>> That's pretty much what it said before, no? ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest this in the "RPC Responsibilities" section:
>>>>>
>>>>> 14. Ensuring that RFCs accurately document registry value
>>>>> assignments made by IANA.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the avoidance of doubt, we could also say the same thing
>>>>> under the  IANA considerations.
>>>>
>>>> That does remove the bits I was confused about, but to me it
>>>> also seems to change the semantics somewhat.  Namely, now the
>>>> RPC is just consuming things produced by IANA, which could be
>>>> seen as removing the possibility to coordinate on which
>>>> allocations are actually to be made, from what range(s), etc.,
>>>> that the previous text seems to have implied.  I think I have
>>>> seen the RPC notice things in editing that would affect what
>>>> IANA does, and thus am not confident that describing this as a
>>>> unidirectional flow would be entirely accurate.  (Whether such
>>>> coordination could occur between RPC and IANA in an informal
>>>> manner so as to get the right thing to happen anyway, is
>>>> another question.)
>>>
>>> In practice, it has always been a two-way flow, even when the
>>> RFC Editor and IANA held discussions by looking into a mirror.
>>> And even with that level of coordination, it has often been a
>>> bit of a dance because of the long-standing principle that RFCs
>>> do not direct IANA to assign, or even request, particular code
>>> points.  So please try to write the text along the lines Ben
>>> suggests, e.g., as something more like "Coordinate with IANA as
>>> necessary to ensure that any registry value assignments that
>>> actually appear RFCs are consistent with the registries."
>>
>> What I suggested most recently was:
>>
>> 14. Coordinating with IANA to ensure that RFCs accurately document
>>       registration processes and assigned values for IANA registries.
>>
>> Note that this mentions registration processes in addition to assigned
>> values, because many RFCs establish registries and the processes for
>> registering values in those registries need to be correct, too.
> 
> Mentioning registration procedures as well is a good catch!
> I know that I am behind on the thread, but since I hadn't seen this
> specific proposal yet either (like John), 

I *thought* I had posted it to the list, but perhaps not.

> let me note here that it looks
> good to me.

Great, thanks!

Peter