Re: "IETF consensus" in IANA considerations [was Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational ]

[Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>]

   *> 
  *> > On Thursday, Jan 23, 2003, at 17:54 America/Montreal, Bob Braden wrote:
  *> > > I interpret "IETF consensus" as meaning that at least a Last
  *> > > Call was conducted.  To use any other interpretation seems to me to
  *> > > be dishonest.  I guess I am agreeing with Kireeti.
  *> 
  *> > [IAB hat off]
  *> 
  *> 
  *> As one of the authors of RFC 2434 "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
  *> Considerations Section in RFCs", I have long regretted defining the term
  *> "IETF Consensus" as it is in that document. 2434 says:
  *> 
  *> >       IETF Consensus - New values are assigned through the IETF
  *> >            consensus process. Specifically, new assignments are made via
  *> >            RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek
  *> >            input on prospective assignments from appropriate persons
  *> >            (e.g., a relevant Working Group if one exists).
  *> > 
  *> >            Examples: SMTP extensions [SMTP-EXT], BGP Subsequent Address
  *> >            Family Identifiers [BGP4-EXT].
  *> 

Thomas,

I am one of those guilty of not carefully (re-)reading RFC 2434.
Reviewing your message, I realize that my comment quoted above was
actually wrong.  What I should have said is that for RSVP assignments I
interpret(ed) "IETF Consensus" as meaning that the IANA action is
question is documented in an RFC that the IESG formally asks the RFC
Editor to publish.   [I know, I know, that's exactly what your
paragraph said.]

The RFC Editor and the IANA (and the community?) then assume that the
IESG has exercised due diligence in assuring that the specification in
question is consistent with technical work of the IETF.

If there is a process problem, it is that without a Last Call, there
may be no mechanism to make visible to the community the degree of due
diligence that the IESG actually exercised.  If the RFC originates in a
WG, there is a visibility mechanism, but not if the RFC magically
appeared and was passed by the IESG.  The IESG could be sensitive to
this concern and make sure that such an RFC contains some indication
of who reviewed it. 

In any case, I am not aware of serious failures of the "IETF
Consensus" IANA assignments for RSVP.  I *did* have very serious
problems with IANA assignment requests in the FCFS category,
which came from outside the IETF process, but that is another
thread.

Bob Braden