IANA actions and tables document

[John C Klensin]

--On Friday, 12 December, 2008 17:21 +0900 Martin Duerst
<duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:

> I have real difficulties to understand why what Ken has
> explained in great detail continues to be ignored. More below.

Martin,

I am most assuredly not ignoring it and I don't think Patrik is
either.

What we have been told is that the likelihood of something
happening that would cause this category to be used at all is
vanishingly small.  At one stage, there was opposition to even
having the category because it would never be needed.   It was
retained because of what appeared to be consensus that leaving
it there as a logical (even if not actual) category was
reasonable and as a safety precaution against an unlikely event.

Should that improbable and unlikely event occur, I'd like to see
the IETF have the opportunity to review and understand what
actually caused it and why and, in particular, whether other
changes in the specifications or assumptions are needed.
Requiring IETF review of the proposed new entries in that
category is one way to encourage that review as well as acting
as a check on any actual changes.

I don't believe that is equivalent to "do it once with IETF
approval, then make it automatic".  It could end up being "do it
once with IETF approval and then wait to see if it happens
again" or any of a collection of other outcomes/ strategies.  

I do see a possible middle ground here, even if I'm not quite
sure how to write it into the documents.  That would be for UTC
to formally commit to IETF that, if a condition that would
trigger this category arose, they would take the initiative to
generate the automatic list that Ken proposes and send it to the
IETF as a means of initiating IETF review.  That would at least
ensure that the review was initiated in a timely way but would
still serve the objective that Patrik, myself, and others
believe is necessary if the category is ever to be actually
populated.

     john