| Internet-Draft | Registry policies “… with Expert Review” | October 2024 |
| Bormann & Tiloca | Expires 9 April 2025 | [Page] |
This document updates RFC 8126, 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.¶
It also updates RFC 7120 with the necessary process to perform early allocations for registries with one of the augmented policies.¶
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.¶
Status information for this document may be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bormann-gendispatch-with-expert-review/.¶
Discussion of this document takes place on the gendispatch Working Group mailing list (mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org), which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/. Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch/.¶
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at https://github.com/cabo/with-expert-review.¶
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.¶
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.¶
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."¶
This Internet-Draft will expire on 9 April 2025.¶
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.¶
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶
Section 4 of RFC 8126 [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 RFC 8126 [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 RFC 8126 [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. As additional rationale that may be too detailed for the published version of this document, https://github.com/cabo/with-expert-review/issues/1 contains an example where the Designated Expert is needed to maintain overall consistency (and additional efficiency, if desired). (This editors' note will be deleted by the RFC editor.)¶
This document updates Section 4 of RFC 8126 [BCP26], 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.¶
It also updates Sections 2 and 3 of RFC 7120 [BCP100] with the necessary process to perform early allocations for registries with one of the augmented policies.¶
For each of the well-known policies defined in Sections 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 of RFC 8126 [BCP26], this document adds a parallel augmented policy that also specifies involving a Designated Expert.¶
This policy is identical to a combination of Sections 4.6 and 4.7 of RFC 8126 [BCP26]. The RFC to be published serves as the documentation required by Section 4.6 of RFC 8126 [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.¶
This policy is identical to a combination of Sections 4.6 and 4.8 of RFC 8126 [BCP26]. The RFC to be published serves as the documentation required by Section 4.6 of RFC 8126 [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.¶
This policy is identical to a combination of Sections 4.6 and 4.9 of RFC 8126 [BCP26], mirroring the requirements of Section 2.2 narrowed down to a certain type of RFC to be published.¶
This policy is identical to a combination of either Section 4.5 or Section 4.6 with Section 4.10 of RFC 8126 [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.¶
This document updates RFC 7120 [BCP100] to apply to the augmented policies defined above in Section 2.1, Section 2.2, and Section 2.3.¶
Specifically:¶
Item (a) in Section 2 of RFC 7120 [BCP100] is extended to include the three augmented policies "RFC Required With Expert Review", "IETF Review With Expert Review", and "Standards Action With Expert Review" (see Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of the present document, respectively).¶
Item (2) in Section 3.1 of RFC 7120 [BCP100] is amended as follows:¶
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 Section 2 of RFC-XXXX, IANA will ask the Designated Expert(s) to approve the early allocation before registration. In addition, WG chairs are encouraged to consult the Expert(s) early during the early allocation process.¶
RFC editor: please replace XXXX by the RFC number of this document and delete this note.¶
The security considerations of Section 5 of RFC 7120 [BCP100] and Section 12 of RFC 8126 [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.¶
This document is all about procedures that need to be implemented by IANA, but by itself has no IANA actions.¶
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]¶
Section 10 of [RFC9528]¶
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.¶