How Requests for IANA Action Will Be Handled on the Independent Stream
draft-ise-iana-policy-03

(Via drafts-eval@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ise-iana-policy-02 and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

We understand there are no actions for us. However, we also understand that when reviewing Independent Stream documents in the future, we should expect that if the document is creating a registry, it must be "specifically tied to a code point allocated for the same document from an existing registry where the allocation policy for that document is Specification Required, Expert Review, RFC Required, or First Come First Served."

Question: in that quoted phrase from Section 4, should the second occurrence of the word "document" be replaced with "registry"?

We also understand that the allocation procedure for an Independent-Stream-created sub-registry may only be First Come First Served, RFC Required, Experimental, or Private Use.

Any other type of sub-registry or registration procedure should be flagged in our review.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist

Publication has been requested for draft-ise-iana-policy as an
Informational RFC in the Independent Submissions Stream.

This document describes how the Independent Submissions Editor will
handle documents that request IANA action. In general it serves to set
expectations that only a few limited cases will be allowed. It is the ISE's
intention that this document, once published as an RFC, be linked to
from the relevant RFC Editor web page.

The document itself makes no requests for IANA action.

The document has been sent for review to five groups or individuals:
- The RFC Stream Editor who provided impetus for this work
- The IANA who gave a useful response via Michelle Cotton
- The ISEB who were generous with their opinions and advice
- The IRTF chair who gave review comments
- The IETF community who were (surprisingly) helpful with comments on
  the main mailing list.

The current revision contains updates that reflect these comments.

While this document is presented  here for 5742 Conflict Review, the ISE
would be very grateful for any thoughts or comments that the IESG has on
the content of the document.