We have to decide whether the NUT RFC should be 1. an individual submission with status "Informational" or 2. an IETF Working Group (WG) submission as Best Current Practice (BCP).
Should we decide 1, then your Editor will prepare a fuller text which anticipates the questions to come from the IETF. After that it will be matter of negotiation between Jim, myself, the IETF Editor, IANA and finally the IETF. We will have little difficulty in getting an RFC, but getting a second IANA port for TLS support is uncertain. Should we decide 2, then we would need to request permission from an IETF Area Director to form a WG in that Area, with an approved charter. A WG operates in a mailing list which is archived by the IETF. This means that we cannot use our nut-user list - we would have to open a new list. Do we have enough people willing to join a new list to discuss IETF processes? The submission of a text becomes more complex. The WG takes decisions on the basis of consensus as determined by the WG chairman (Jim). The advantage is that any text submitted goes directly by the IETF itself which has the power to approve/disapprove the assignment of ports. For full details, see RFC 2418 "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures" https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418 It would be a much longer process getting to a BCP, a matter of years. It would involve more people, the formalities are laborious and the outcome is uncertain. It is perfectly possible for the IETF to end up saying No. Given the procedural complexity of developing a BCP (Best Current Practice), and the difficulty of transferring a port, I am personally inclined to follow the suggestion from the RFC Editor, stay with an informational RFC and follow the suggested path 1. But this must be a collective decision taken by the whole NUT project. Roger _______________________________________________ Nut-upsuser mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
