RE: thoughts on documentation reuse.

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

> > 	You've got me here.  However, I think that we need to press for the
> > creation of a new process.  IANA is for maintaining relatively trivial
> > updates, and I don't think TCs are quite that.  I'd prefer to see a 
> > process that requires WG review, but takes only about 1-2 months to 
> > complete and doesn't require charter work (go straight into Last Call?). 
> > I think that such a process could unclog a number of pipes (SNMP 
> > encryption algorithms spring immediately to mind).  If such a thing is 
> > impossible, I think I could be convinced to support the IANA thing.
> ...
> 
> This is exactly what the "IANA Considerations" section of a
> document is for, and this would seem to be well within the
> range of possibilities for technical review of registration
> requests provided for in RFC 2434.
> 
Let us stick to TCs, the other stuff may involve much more.

Making an IANA considerations for registering new common/generic TCs
seems something we can do.
The problem is that we have MIBs that gos PS, DS, STD.
So what we need to be able to defend is that a set of such TCs at 
IANA may be referenced (imported) in a normative way and yet such
docs may advance on the stds track.

Does anybody see an objection to that?
Or do many people support this?

Bert