The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and
sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide
assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing
Directorate, please see:

  http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs,
it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other
IETF Early Review/Last Call  comments that you receive, and strive to
resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-ianabis-early-registries-02.txt
Reviewer: Acee Lindem
Review Date: 09/10/2026
IETF LC End Date: 09/10/2026
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

  As indicated by the abstract, the document  describes the requirements
  for establishing an IANA registry before the IETF Stream document
  that creates the registry is an RFC.

  The document is well-written and covers many use cases. However,
  I have questions on a couple of the documented procedures. Given
  the time constraints and the short review cycle, I didn't review
  the other referenced IANA drafts (I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc7120bis
  and I-D.ietf-ianabis-rfc8126bis).

Major Issues:

  Section 6 discusses an alternative to early IANA creation of the
  registry. It would seem to be problematic if registry allocation
  is to require RFC publication. Specifically, the last bullet
  indicates that allocation in the registry would require documents
  approved for publication. How could there ever be a document
  approved for RFC publication that requests allocation in a registry
  created by an unpublished document? It seems obvious to have the
  document already approved for publication create the registry.

Minor Issues:

  Section 5.1 and 5.2 discuss new registry requests that do not
  require an RFC. Consequently, the second paragraph in section 5.1
  seems to be out of context here since it refers to "Specification
  Required" documents.

Nits: None.

Thanks,
Acee