Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02.txt> (IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters) to Best Current Practice

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 03:24:43 -0700

At 04:07 07-05-2013, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>the following document:
>- 'IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE
>    802 Parameters'
>   <draft-eastlake-rfc5342bis-02.txt> as Best Current Practice
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>[email-masked] mailing lists by 2013-06-04. Exceptionally, comments may be

Sorry for the late comments.  I'll defer to the authors on what to do 
about them.

In Section 2.1.3:

   "o  must be for standards purposes (either for an IETF Standard or
       other standard related to IETF work),"

The above is not that clear.  I suggest using "IETF Review".  BTW, 
the documentation requirement could also be fulfilled with 
"Specification Required".

Section 2.3.2.1 mentions changes to RFC 2153.  I suggest having an 
"Updates:" for that RFC.

In Section 3.1:

   "o  the assignment must be for standards use (either for an IETF
       Standard or other standard related to IETF work),"

IETF Review (see previous comment about that) could be used.

In Section 4:

   "If different policies from those above are required for such a
    parameter, a BCP or Standards Track RFC must be adopted updating this
    BCP and specifying the new policy and parameter."

"Standards Action" could be used for this.

In Section 5.1 I suggest using "IESG Approval".  BTW, IESG 
Ratification of an Expert Review approval recommendation looks unusual to me.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 11:40:06 -0400

Hi SM,

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:24 AM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:
> The above is not that clear.  I suggest using "IETF Review".  BTW, the
> documentation requirement could also be fulfilled with "Specification
> Required".

I agree that it is not a precise, perfectly "clear", mechanical rule.
That is why there is a Expert to make judgements.

This part is unchanged from RFC 5342 and actual experience does not
indicate any problem. I believe that, since RFC 5342 came out, seven
code points have been allocated under these provisions, all for single
MAC addresses, and the only request I am aware of that has not yet
been submitted is also for a single MAC address. I think it is silly
to bother the whole IETF (or even the whole IESG) for the allocation
of a single value when over ten million are available. I think it is
enough just to bother the Expert.

> Section 2.3.2.1 mentions changes to RFC 2153.  I suggest having an

OK.

> IETF Review (see previous comment about that) could be used.

See previous response.

> "Standards Action" could be used for this.

I believe the statement is brief, clear, and unambiguous and do not
see any reason to change it.

> In Section 5.1 I suggest using "IESG Approval".  BTW, IESG Ratification of
> an Expert Review approval recommendation looks unusual to me.

I believe the provisions of Section 5.1 are fine. In the extremely
rare cases (perhaps once every five years or so?) where a request
would require IESG Ratification, prior review by the Expert would be
beneficial so the IESG would have the benefit of the Expert's opinion
before they consider the request.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]