On 10. Dec 2024, at 22:32, Joel Halpern <jmh.dir...@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > > Where we disagree seems to be in the reading of RFC 8126. If we want to give > the Expert latitude to decide if the registry entry is allowed based on an > I-D, we use the "Expert Review" branch. If we want to require a > specification, we use the "Specification Required" branch. If we want to > require both, then we specify both.
That appears to echo a common misconception. The requirements for Specification Required are a clearly defined as a proper superset of those for Expert Review. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8126#section-4.5 >> 4.5. Expert Review >> >> For the Expert Review policy, review and approval by a designated >> expert (see Section 5) is required. While this does not necessarily >> require formal documentation, information needs to be provided with >> the request for the designated expert to evaluate. […] >> >> 4.6. Specification Required >> >> For the Specification Required policy, review and approval by a >> designated expert (see Section 5) is required, and the values and >> their meanings must be documented in a permanent and readily >> available public specification, in sufficient detail so that >> interoperability between independent implementations is possible. >> This policy is the same as Expert Review, with the additional >> requirement of a formal public specification. In addition to the >> normal review of such a request, the designated expert will review >> the public specification and evaluate whether it is sufficiently >> stable and permanent, and sufficiently clear and technically sound to >> allow interoperable implementations. […] “Permanent” and “readily available” are the requirements on the form, which (archived) I-Ds clearly fulfill in one of the best possible ways. > But as written, Expert Review IANA registries do not require a document., Correct, as long as there is “information” (which might be transferred in a phone call, or might not be more than an ASCII name given to a port number). > Is all we are arguing about allowing an informational reference to I-Ds in > Expert Review registries? (The earlier email I saw seemed to be about > "Specification Required" registries. I believe we are specifically talking about Specification Required, but note that Expert Review registries [ranges] also can (and mostly will) include a Reference column. Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list -- rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to rfc-interest-le...@rfc-editor.org
