Dave, Donald,
"Requests for new ar$op values are made through IETF Review or IESG
Approval"
Who decides which of these two is required? I assume it's the IESG,
but would be good to clarify.
This is a standard expression used in many IANA considerations sections.
As Donald mentioned, its basically up to the applicant to choose.
However, the circumstances typically dictate what to do.
For instance, IETF Review requires an RFC from IETF WGs or an AD
sponsored IETF submission. If you have that, then you have to do nothing
and the numbers will be automatically given to you after your RFC is
approved. If you have something else, such as an RFC Editor submission
that was not reviewed in the IETF, or perhaps a use that is not even
associated with an RFC, then IETF Review cannot be used. IESG Approval
will then be used, which basically means that the IESG makes a judgment
call on whether the allocation should be granted.
We have often used IANA policies of the type "<some rule> or IESG
Approval". The idea is that the normal process should follow <some rule>
but the IESG can grant exceptions. If we we later see an exceptional
situation that warrants a code point, it can be allocated without
revising the RFC that defined the IANA policy. For instance, we've had
standards track RFC requirement for some number spaces in our protocols,
but the IESG granted code points for some experimental specifications
from the IRTF.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
