Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
222 lines (163 loc) · 7.13 KB

draft-bormann-gendispatch-with-expert-review.md

File metadata and controls

222 lines (163 loc) · 7.13 KB
Raw

title: Registry policies “… with Expert Review”

abbrev: "TODO - Abbreviation"

category: bcp

docname: draft-bormann-gendispatch-with-expert-review-latest submissiontype: IETF updates: 7120, 8126 number: date: consensus: true v: 3 area: General workgroup: General Area Dispatch keyword:

author:

  • name: Carsten Bormann org: Universität Bremen TZI street: Postfach 330440 city: Bremen code: D-28359 country: Germany phone: +49-421-218-63921 email: cabo@tzi.org
  • name: Marco Tiloca org: RISE AB street: Isafjordsgatan 22 city: Kista code: SE-16440 Stockholm country: Sweden email: marco.tiloca@ri.se

normative: BCP100:

RFC7120:

BCP26:

RFC8126:

RFC8729: bodies

informative:

--- abstract

--- middle

Introduction

{{Section 4 of RFC8126@BCP26}} defines a number of well-known policies that can be referenced as registration policies from documents that set up IANA registries. Some of these policies involve a Designated Expert, who is intended to be aware of the fine points of what should or should not become a registration in that registry ({{Sections 4.5 and 4.6 of RFC8126@BCP26}}). Some other policies involve a review body that autonomously, not involving a Designated Expert, decide whether a registration should be accepted ({{Sections 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 of RFC8126@BCP26}}).

In the past, this has occasionally led to friction where a Designated Expert was not consulted by the review body before approving the registration, missing some finer point (such as certain consistency requirements) that would have been pointed out by the expert.

1 {{Section 4 of RFC8126@BCP26}}, 2

3 {{Sections 2 and 3 of RFC7120@BCP100}} 4

Augmented Registration Policies {#augment}

For each of the well-known policies defined in {{Sections 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 of RFC8126@BCP26}}, this document adds a parallel augmented policy that also specifies involving a Designated Expert.

RFC Required With Expert Review {#rfcreq}

This policy is identical to a combination of {{Sections 4.6 and 4.7 of RFC8126@BCP26}}. The RFC to be published serves as the documentation required by {{Section 4.6 of RFC8126@BCP26}}. It is the responsibility of the stream approving body (see {{Section 5.1 of RFC8729}}) to ensure that an approval for the registration by the Designated Expert is obtained before approving the RFC establishing the registration.

IETF Review With Expert Review {#ietfrev}

This policy is identical to a combination of {{Sections 4.6 and 4.8 of RFC8126@BCP26}}. The RFC to be published serves as the documentation required by {{Section 4.6 of RFC8126@BCP26}}. It is the responsibility of the IESG to ensure that an approval for the registration by the Designated Expert is obtained before approving the RFC establishing the registration.

Standards Action With Expert Review {#stdsact}

This policy is identical to a combination of {{Sections 4.6 and 4.9 of RFC8126@BCP26}}, mirroring the requirements of {{ietfrev}} narrowed down to a certain type of RFC to be published.

IESG Approval With Expert Review

This policy is identical to a combination of either Section {{4.5<RFC8126}} or Section {{4.6<RFC8126}} with {{Section 4.10 of RFC8126@BCP26}}, depending on the discretion of the IESG mentioned in the first paragraph of the latter section (which may be additionally informed by input from the Designated Expert). It is the responsibility of the IESG to ensure that an approval for the registration by the Designated Expert is obtained before approving the registration.

Early Allocation for Augmented Registration Policies

This document updates {{RFC7120@BCP100}} to apply to the augmented policies defined above in {{rfcreq}}, {{ietfrev}}, and {{stdsact}}.

Specifically:

  • Item (a) in {{Section 2 of RFC7120@BCP100}} is extended to include the three augmented policies.
  • Item (2) in {{Section 3.1 of RFC7120@BCP100}} is amended as follows:

{:quote}

{: start="2"}

  1. The WG chairs determine whether the conditions for early allocations described in Section 2 are met, particularly conditions (c) and (d). For the registration policies defined in {{augment}} of RFC-XXXX, the WG chairs first request review and approval from the Designated Expert.

5

Security Considerations

The security considerations of {{Section 5 of RFC7120@BCP100}} and {{Section 12 of RFC8126@BCP26}} apply. Augmenting registration policies by Designated Expert involvement may help reduce the potential of introducing security issues by adding inconsistent or insecure registrations to a registry.

IANA Considerations

This document is all about procedures that need to be implemented by IANA, but by itself has no IANA actions.

--- back

Usage in Existing Specifications

This appendix is informative.

Examples for RFCs (and one RFC-to-be) and registries created from them that use "Standards Action with Expert Review", without further explanation of this usage, include:

  • {{?IANA.uuid}}, interpreting the approved {{?I-D.ietf-uuidrev-rfc4122bis-14}}
  • {{?IANA.cose}}, interpreting {{Section 11 of ?RFC9052}} in conjunction with the older {{Section 16 of ?RFC8152}}
  • {{?IANA.ace}}, interpreting {{Section 9 of ?RFC9203}}
  • {{Section 6 of ?RFC9393}}
  • {{Section 10 of ?RFC9528}}

Related Policy Statements Potentially of Interest

In a number of places, {{?RFC8881}} uses phrasing such as:

{:quote}

Hence, all assignments to the registry are made on a Standards Action basis per Section 4.6 of [63], with Expert Review required.

(here, [63] is a reference to {{RFC8126@BCP100}}. RFC 8881's predecessor {{?RFC5661}} used:)

{:quote}

All assignments to the registry are made on a Standards Action basis per Section 4.1 of [55], with Expert Review required.

(here, [55] is a reference to {{?RFC5226}}, the precursor of RFC 8126, which listed the well-known policies in its Section {{4.1<RFC5226}}.)

{{?RFC4430}} (written before {{RFC5226}}) uses this phrasing:

{:quote}

  • Assignment from the "RESERVED TO IANA" range needs Standards Action, or non-standards-track RFCs with Expert Review.

Somewhat unrelated, {{?RFC6787}} uses the redundant phrase "Specification Required with Expert Review". {{Section 5 of ?RFC5797}} uses related phrasing for a more complicated requirement.

Acknowledgments

{:numbered="false"}

The creation of this document was prompted by an IESG ballot comment from John Scudder, which led to the observation that the now somewhat common practice of augmenting review-body-based registry policies by Expert Review had not been documented sufficiently.

Footnotes

  1. This document updates 1 RFC 8126, 2 ↩ ↩2

  2. adding registry policies that augment an existing policy that is based on a review body action with the additional requirement for a Designated Expert review. ↩ ↩2

  3. It also updates 3 RFC 7120 4 ↩ ↩2

  4. with the necessary process to perform early allocations for registries with one of the augmented policies. ↩ ↩2

  5. RFC editor: please replace XXXX by the RFC number of this document and delete this note. ↩