[Encodings] IANA transition

I take the ‘Encodings’ document as evidence that all is not well in the way the community interacts with IANA, if the IANA character set registry isn’t sufficient to define authoritatively how charsets should be used and to also inform implementors how they ARE used.

And a policy of “just use utf8” would argue that it might be OK to close the charset registry. Other registries like those for MIME types and URI schemes having similar problems but not being OK to close to additions.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat@ietf.org<mailto:ietf-secretariat@ietf.org>>
Date: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:34 PM
Subject: New Non-WG Mailing List: ianaplan -- IANA Plan
To: IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce@ietf.org<mailto:ietf-announce@ietf.org>>
Cc: ajs@crankycanuck.ca<mailto:ajs@crankycanuck.ca>, ianaplan@ietf.org<mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>


A new IETF non-working group email list has been created.

List address: ianaplan@ietf.org<mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/

To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan


Purpose:

This is a list for discussion of the IETF's position on the IANA
oversight function. In 2014, the NTIA announced that it was planning
to step out of stewardship of the IANA function, on the condition that
the relevant communities were able to agree on new stewardship for the
various IANA registries. NTIA has been clear that the IETF is one of
the affected communities, and that its views are therefore important
for NTIA's evaluation of any proposal. ICANN is convening a process
involving many interested parties, including the IETF. This list will
be the place for the IETF to discuss the proposals.

For additional information, please contact the list administrators.