tables document, IANA instructions

Patrik Fältström patrik at frobbit.se
Tue Jul 15 14:49:10 CEST 2008


On 15 jul 2008, at 14.18, John C Klensin wrote:

>> But for creation of the derived property list, (as many people
>> will   copy it, as Ken says), I propose the following:
>>
>> Expert Review (or Designated Expert) - approval by a Designated
>>       Expert is required.  The required documentation and
>> review        criteria for use by the Designated Expert should
>> be provided        when defining the registry.  For example,
>> see Sections 6 and        7.2 in [RFC3748].
>>
>>       Examples: EAP Method Types [RFC3748], HTTP Digest AKA
>>       algorithm versions [RFC4169], URI schemes [RFC4395],
>> GEOPRIV        Location Types [RFC4589].
>>
>> I.e. someone should be appointed to actually create the
>> derived   property list, ensure there are no "problems", and
>> double.check that   it is actually correct (no bugs) according
>> to the specification.
>
> But, Patrik, doesn't "Expert Review" eliminate the IETF Last
> Call that you have suggested (I think persuasively) we should
> require until we get some experience.   I agree that having
> someone with responsibility to create an initial list is wise,
> but that can be done simply by requiring posting of an I-D,
> etc., that is a normal first step in the IETF Review process.

I am talking about "expert review" *just* for the creation of the non- 
normative list that IANA holds. I.e. new versions of Appendix A of the  
tables document.

For changes to the core of the document (backward compatibility  
exception list for example) we require IETF Last Call, IESG decision  
etc.

    Patrik



More information about the Idna-update mailing list