We are changing that process right now. We have begun to report the
reviewer (with the review) in the email to the requester.
We just need to make sure this small change is communicated to those experts
that are part of review "teams" as their individual names are not published
on the main list of registries.
I don't think it needs to go in this document as this is already in
Let me know if you have any questions.
On 1/27/11 5:10 PM, "Joe Touch" <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
On 1/27/2011 12:52 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
Small Issue #3: I object to anonymous review
The current review is anonymous and this draft does not seem to change that.
I don't like anonymous review - it's not how we do things at IETF and it
encourages really bad behavior. I have several emails with an expert
reviewer relayed via IANA where the conversation was going no where - once I
knew the name of the reviewer, the whole conversation changed and stuff
quickly came back to the realm of sane. I'm not willing to forward these
emails to the list as that would just not be kind to anyone but I am happy
to forward them to the IESG if they think looking at them is really
I can see your point, and I personally have no problem with disclosing the
reviewer identity. What do others think?
AFAICT, the experts team reports to IANA. We make recommendations to
them. They are the ones who have the conversation with the applicant.
They can take our advice or not - that's their decision.
I.e., we are advisors to IANA.
Further, many requests are handled my multiple reviewers.
Many of us do have specific conversations with applicants, and identify
ourselves when that happens, but it doesn't seem important to codify
that in this doc.
Again, this doc is about the unification of the registries. It is NOT
about all the other policies that govern them. The info that's there is
advisory ONLY (it is not binding to IANA).
Ietf mailing list