RE: Request for allocation of Tunnel-Type value (fwd)

["Glen Zorn \(gwz\)" <gwz@cisco.com>]

Bernard Aboba <mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> allegedly scribbled on
Friday, April 27, 2007 7:51 AM:

>> As I recall, the intent was to require both the publication of an RFC
>> and expert review (preferably by a relevant WG).  "Expert Review" as
>> defined in BCP 26 requires neither of these; RFC 3575 seems to imply
>> that the former is required in the case of "Expert Review", but not
>> the latter.
> 
> Here is what RFC 3575 Section 2.1 says:

I stand corrected.

> 
>    For registration requests where a Designated Expert should be
>    consulted, the responsible IESG area director should appoint the
>    Designated Expert.  The intention is that any allocation will be
>    accompanied by a published RFC.  However, the Designated Expert can
>    approve allocations once it seems clear that an RFC will be
>    published, allowing for the allocation of values prior to the
>    document being approved for publication as an RFC.  The Designated
>    Expert will post a request to the AAA WG mailing list (or a
>    successor designated by the Area Director) for comment and review,
>    including an Internet-Draft.  Before a period of 30 days has
>    passed, the Designated Expert will either approve or deny the
>    registration request, publish a notice of the decision to the AAA
>    WG mailing list or its successor, and inform IANA of its decision.
>    A denial notice must be justified by an explanation and, in the
>    cases where it is possible, concrete suggestions on how the
>    request can be modified so as to become acceptable.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>