Subject: [ANCP] Criteria for additions to ANCP IANA registries

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:30:42 -0400

Mykyta Yevstifev quite properly pointed out off-list that we have not 
specified the criteria by which additions may be made to our ANCP 
registries, per RFC 5226. Below is the list of registries we are 
creating, and my proposal for criteria. A brief reminder of what those 
criteria imply is appended. We could also split numbering ranges and 
have different criteria for different pieces.

ANCP Message Types: Standards Action

ANCP Error Codes: Specification Required

ANCP Function Codes: Standards Action

ANCP Technology Types: Specification Required

ANCP Command Codes: Standards Action

ANCP TLV Types: Specification Required

ANCP Capabilities: Standards Action

GSMP/ANCP Versions: Standards Action

The complete set of possible criteria listed in RFC 5226, roughly in 
increasing order of strictness, is:
- Private Use
- Experimental Use
- Hierarchical Allocation
- First Come First Served
- Expert Review
- Specification Required -- any publicly and persistently available
   specification will do
- RFC Required -- could be individual stream, but has to be IETF
- IETF Review -- has to be WG or AD-sponsored
- Standards Action -- has to be Standards Track
- IESG Approval -- exceptional, no document necessarily required

So what I've proposed above is that any organization can define an ANCP 
Error Code, Technology Type, or TLV Type (subject to criteria for 
documentation and expert review), but the rest needs Standards-track 
documents.

Tom Taylor