tables document, IANA instructions

John C Klensin klensin at
Tue Jul 15 15:55:33 CEST 2008

--On Tuesday, 15 July, 2008 14:49 +0200 Patrik Fältström
<patrik at> wrote:

> 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.

Makes sense.  But it needs to be _very_ clear in the document
which procedures are being applied to which parts.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list