Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs
draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-09
Yes
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2007-10-17)
Unknown
> Value Description Reference > -------- ------------------- --------- > tbd1 Foobar [RFCXXXX] It seems that using TBD instead of tbd would be clearer.
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2007-10-17)
Unknown
I think "Magnus Westerland" in the acknowledgment section is actually me as I have commented on the document. Could I please have my last name correctly spelled "Westerlund"?
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2007-10-18)
Unknown
I agree with Mark's discuss comment that multi-expert registries need to be supported.
Tim Polk Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2007-10-18)
Unknown
As in Mark's Discuss and Sam's comment, cases where the designated expert role is shared among multiple people should explicitly be allowed. Section 3.2 discusses the appointment of designated experts by the IESG. Perhaps we could add a paragraph after the next to last paragraph (following "the IESG will appoint replacements if necessary") along the following lines: In addition, the IESG may choose to appoint multiple individuals as designated experts for a particular registry. For example, multiple designated experts may be required to limit the workload for name spaces with large numbers of registration. Where multiple designated experts have been appointed, IANA shall designate a primary for each request, who shall be responsible for carrying out the evaluation. The mechanism(s) for selecting the primary designated expert for a particular request is left to IANA. I hope this text also addresses Michelle's concerns.
Chris Newman Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-03-26)
Unknown
It is my understanding that the following statement: "since IANA URLs are not guaranteed to be stable in the future" is not actually true in many cases as IANA goes to significant effort to preserve IANA URL stability (the last time stability was broken was rightly broken was the move from isi.edu to iana.org and I see no reason to repeat such a move). While this document has been delayed too long by the IESG for too little improvement, I would be happier with the document if this statement was simply removed as a BCP has no business making value judgments about operational matters. At the recent IESG plenary we discussed to what degree rules should be written down vs. left to the reasonable person principle. It's my opinion this draft errors on the side of writing down too much and may be worse than its predecessor for that reason in some areas. I hope this does not cause problems in the future. Overspecified rules can make it more difficult to apply the reasonable person principle. IANA registry URLs should be stable unless the registry is renamed (or presently under-specified) and I would encourage use of such URLs in RFCs as that aids protocol implementers unfamiliar with the maze of IETF/IANA/RFC web pages in finding protocol extensions, but IANA should have discretion on this topic so any text that leaves IANA discretion is fine with me. Two IANA ideas I've seen used recently that I like (not a suggestion to change the draft now, unless the authors/shepherd wish to do so): 1. the concept of provisional registration, for example in the email/news/http headers registry. This provides a way to easily reserve a name during experimentation/draft phase to avoid collision, while clearly marking it as undesirable for interoperability in the registry. 2. for protocol extension names, the use of a naming convention that prevents implementations of drafts from colliding with the final published specification. For example, the use of "X-DRAFT-W05-QRESYNC" in draft-ietf-lemonade-reconnect-client-06.txt.
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-10-16)
Unknown
Does the following need to be broken out into a terminology section? > In this document, we call the set of possible values for such a field > a "name space"; its actual value may be a text string, a number or > another kind of value. The binding or association of a specific value > with a particular purpose within a name space is called an assigned > number (or assigned value, or sometimes a "code point", "protocol > constant", or "protocol parameter"). Each assignment of a value in a > name space is called a registration. Page 11: > behind "permanent and readily available" is that a document > can be reasonably be expected to easily be found long after s/be reasonably/reasonably > It should be noted that it often makes sense to partition a name > space into multiple categories, with assignments within each category > handled differently. For example, many protocols now partition name > spaces into two (or even more) parts, where one range is reserved for > Private or Experimental Use, while other ranges are reserved for > globally unique assignments assigned following some review process. > Dividing a name space into ranges makes it possible to have different > policies in place for different ranges. Suggest finding a nice example to reference here. DHCP FooBar example on Page 15 needs column alignment. For consistency, the "tbd1" in the table on page 16 should probably be "TBD1"
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-03-27)
Unknown
(Comment updated for version -09): I'm OK with the new text in Section 5.1; however, Section 4.2 needs the same update (that in some cases, URLs could be left in).