Subject: RFC 2434 text

From: Bruce Lilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:00:36 -0400

On Mon June 27 2005, Thomas Narten wrote:
> What 2434 says about "IESG approval" is:
> 
> >       IESG Approval - New assignments must be approved by the IESG, but
> >            there is no requirement that the request be documented in an
> >            RFC (though the IESG has discretion to request documents or
> >            other supporting materials on a case-by-case basis).
> 
> (as an author) I agree that the "must" wording is poor and would be
> better replaced by something like "may".

Unfortunately, "may" has multiple connotations, so a simple substitution
could still lead to ambiguous interpretation.  Not intending to step on
the RFC Editors' toes, might I suggest:

   New values are conditionally assigned by IESG approval, ...

(assuming, of course, that that is the intent). "Conditionally" is somewhat
redundant; it could be eliminated.  The wording ("values are ... assigned")
is altered to be more consistent with nearby 2434 text.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf