Subject: tcp expansion is still stuck

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:53:17 -0400

There has been no progress on resolving iana issues so I can get tcp-expansion onto an IESG agenda.

--Sam

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 09:31:27 -0400

I think we were debating between IESG approval and standards action.
I personally strongly object to specification required.

It sounds like you would favor IESG approval because that would allow
you to get a codepoint.  I think if the WG is OK with that then all we
need to do is decide on criteria.
Two p.possibilies:

1) The IESG will use the same criteria it uses when evaluating
   protocol actions.  This makes it about the same as standards action
   except that you can have non-IETF registrations.

2) The IESG will act as a stewart for the namspace, considering
   whether the registration is justified given the limited size of the
   namespace.  The IESG will also confirm that proposed registrations
   are not harmful to the Internet.

Under criteria 2 I think you would have a easy registration case.

P.S.  Why couldn't FAST be used for OpenPGP authenticated KDC connections?