Re: [tcpm] IANA TCP options registry ... policy amendments?

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2010-4-1, at 22:07, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> The IESG can already *approve* TCP option numbers (not assign).  The IESG
> is a functionary body, not an assignment body.  We deliberately split the
> responsibilities long ago.

correct. Sorry for being sloppy with my wording.

> Note that the IESG does not "architect", it doesn't "design", nor does it
> *evaluate* designs.  It is merely a coordinating body.

Please re-read RFC2026. The IESG is not merely a coordinating body.

> So, the work flow (as documented) is supposed to be:
>  1) IANA receives request.
>  2) promptly forwarded to IESG (1 working day maximum).

I agree that this took longer than necessary. I disagree that one working day is a reasonable deadline.

>  3) IESG takes action at its next meeting (14 calendar days maximum).
>  4) If there's not enough information (*not* a problem in this case),
>     then ask for more details....

Because the IESG isn't merely a coordinating body, an action takes some time. Especially if it involves reviewing an at least moderately complex proposal that doesn't come from an IETF WG and that requires soliciting external opinions from TCP, DNS and security experts. I will also freely admit that I personally prioritize the processing of IETF documents over dealing with independent submissions.

Lars