RFC Errata
RFC 5226, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", May 2008
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 8126
Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUPArea Assignment: gen
Errata ID: 2715
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Date Reported: 2011-02-12
Rejected by: Russ Housley
Date Rejected: 2011-12-08
Section 4.2 says:
5) Initial assignments and reservations. Clear instructions
should be provided to identify any initial assignments or
registrations. In addition, any ranges that are to be reserved
for "Private Use", "Reserved", "Unassigned", etc. should be
clearly indicated.
It should say:
5) Initial assignments and reservations. Clear instructions
SHALL be provided to identify any initial assignments or
registrations. In addition, any ranges that are "Unassigned"
(only for those registries that have a bounded size), to be
"Reserved", used for "Private Use", "Experimentation", etc.
SHALL be clearly indicated.
Notes:
Julian Reschke included the following notes to his errata report #2684:
--Citation starts--
Unassigned values are not "reserved". For bounded registries, they can be computed from the assigned/reserved values. For unbounded registries (think media types), mentioning them doesn't make any sense at all.
--Citation ends--
Anyway, I propose to consider mentioning the norm about mandatory mentioning the Unassigned values in the registry description appropriate and useful. This would improve the work of IANA staff that will create the registries.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Changing a "should" to a "SHALL" in a BCP cannot happen through the errata. IETF consensus is needed for such a change.