Leslie Daigle wrote:
(Catching up)
Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) wrote:
Figure 1 could use a little clarification, since the actual
IANA parameter assignnment is done after approval, no?
Your concern seems logical. Any objections to moving the IANA into
the post approval part of the diagram?
Actually, I don't think that's the right choice. There is
IANA review of the text *before* approval. It is an explicit
step of the review, and can cause text to change in the document;
the document is not approved until IANA nods that the text
is clear enough to instruct them.
The work of the IANA *after* approval is almost immaterial to
this process -- or, at most, it involves filling in values that
are not known until IANA actions are completed.
So -- at most, note IANA on both sides of the approval line,
but certainly we need to retain the pre-approval instance.
Exactly. I can't be bothered to count but I would say probably
20% of drafts need some clarification or explanation for
IANA during IESG evaluation. It's not unusual for a problem
noticed by IANA being sufficiently serious that an AD places
a DISCUSS on behalf of IANA.
Typically, the pre-approval review by IANA is to figure out
if the instructions to IANA in the document are unambiguous,
complete and actionable. The post-approval stage is different:
actually creating a new registry if needed, and assigning
values to the TBDs in the draft.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec
