Using the Alternative Write-up Template
1. Summary
Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> is the document shepherd?
Adrian Farrel is the responsible Area Director?
This memo describes the process for early allocation of code points
by IANA from registries for which "Specification Required", "RFC
Required", "IETF Review", or "Standards Action" policies apply. This
process can be used to alleviate the problem where code point
allocation is needed to facilitate desired or required implementation
and deployment experience prior to publication of an RFC that would
normally trigger code point allocation.
This document obsoletes RFC 4020.
This I-D is not the product of any working group and is presented as
AD-sponsored.
The document is proposed as BCP partly because it describes a part of
the IETF process and partly because the document it obsoletes (RFC 4020)
is BCP 100.
2. Review and Consensus
The document has been reviewed by a select set of reviewers although the
document (in its previous form and using a different document name) was
flagged to the main IETF list. The reviewers who have commented to date
are experienced in the IETF process and the use of codepoint registries.
This set of reviewers did provide the authro with very substantial
input
There is not (so far) indication of substantial interest from the wider
community. This is almost certainly because the process described is a
relatively small corner that does not impinge on the day-to-day life of
the average IETFer. However, we know that early allocation is used and
is seen as important by a number of working groups.
IETF last call generated some good additional reviews and I don't believe
that any other specific reviews (internal or external) are required.
The document shepherd has no further concerns with this document having
reviewed it and contributed ideas at several stages in its production.
There are no implementations of this new revision of the process.
3. Intellectual Property
Each author (the author) has stated their direct, personal knowledge
that any IPR related to this document of which they are personally aware
has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79.
There are no IPR disclosures against this document.
4. Other Points
There are no downward references from this document.
The IANA Considerations have been checked (and written) by IANA. I have
no issues with them.