Mirja has proposed that we change the assignment policy from "Specification Required" (see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126#section-4.6) to "IETF Review" (see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126#section-4.8).
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8126#section-4.11 says: "When reviewing a document that asks IANA to create a new registry or change a registration policy to any policy more stringent than Expert Review or Specification Required, the IESG should ask for justification to ensure that more relaxed policies have been considered and that the more strict policy is the right one." Can anybody provide justification for adopting Mirja's proposal? On 16/10/2019 14:36, Rob Stradling wrote: > On 14/10/2019 16:32, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: <snip> >>>> 8) sec 10.4: i Wonder if an RFC-required policy wouldn’t be more >>>> appropriate >>>> for the VersionedTransTypes registry? >>> >>> In 6962-bis section 10.4.1, we ask the appointed Expert to "review the >>> public specification to ensure that it is detailed enough to ensure >>> implementation interoperability". >>> >>> AFAICT from RFC8126, "RFC Required" doesn't imply Expert Review, whereas >>> "Specification Required" does. So I think we should leave it as >>> "Specification Required”. >> >> RFC Required implies that the document got some reviews based on the >> respective process. >> >> However, I guess I actually wanted to propose IETF Review (and used the >> wrong term). That would imply that it had to go through the IETF process >> with respective review (and therefore usually it is expected that no expert >> review is needed in addition). Anyway this was mainly a comment to >> double-check this decision. > > I personally don't have a preference, but I'll start another list thread > to discuss this proposal. <snip> -- Rob Stradling Senior Research & Development Scientist Sectigo Limited _______________________________________________ Trans mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans
