tables document, IANA instructions

Patrik Fältström patrik at
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  


More information about the Idna-update mailing list