Subject: [eap] Re: Issue 112: Rewrite of IANA Considerations

From: [email-masked] (Bernard Aboba)
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 23:55:11 -0700 (PDT)

Jari Arkko wrote:

""Seems clear" does not seem clear to me ;-) That is, I'm not sure
how the DE evaluates this condition. Can we be more specific?
An allocation is approved if the DE approves the method, and
the method description has been submitted as an Internet Draft?
Or has been submitted to the RFC Editor / IESG for publication?
Or WG / IETF LC started / finished?

(Specification Required might fit our requirements otherwise
well, but I think we wanted to get allocations slightly earlier
than it would mean. Then again RFC 2434 doesn't explicitly say
in which order things will happen.)"

There are a number of issues that this paragraph is attempting to address.
One is the need for a permanent published specification (an RFC).
"Specification Required" doesn't do this -- someone could post a spec at a
URL, or as an Internet-Draft, and it could expire or the URL could become
invalid at some future time.

At the same time, you don't necessarily want to wait for publication of an
RFC before providing an allocation. I do agree that "seems clear that an
RFC will be published" is somewhat vague, especially since the document
could have a reference hold and therefore not be published until some
other document is completed.

To my mind I think that "enters the RFC Editor queue" is sufficient. We
could add this as an example.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jari Arkko)
Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 20:17:22 +0300

> could add this as an example.

Ok.

--Jari