On 1/29/2011 8:53 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Jan 27, 2011, at 17:29 , Michelle Cotton wrote:
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.
As long as we agree that is the process, it's not a big deal to me if
it is in or out of the document but I don't see any reason not to put
it into the document.
The reason is that this document isn't about the IANA process for
reviewing ports; it's about unifying the port registries.
RFC2780 specifies Expert Review as *one* of the viable means by which
IANA can decide on transport protocol port assignments:
Both the Source and Destination Port fields use the same namespace.
Values in this namespace are assigned following a Specification
Required, Expert Review, IESG Approval, IETF Consensus, or Standards
The term "Expert Review" is defined in RFC 2434. Neither document
mandates that IANA either act on the advice such a review, nor that the
reviewer identity be disclosed as part of that process.
Further, the list of such experts is known by IANA and the IESG:
Designated experts are appointed by the relevant Area Director of the
IESG. They are typically named at the time a document that creates a
new numbering space is published as an RFC, but as experts originally
appointed may later become unavailable, the relevant Area Director
will appoint replacements if necessary.
If you want to codify this process further, you would need to revise
RFC2434 - e.g., to require the disclosure of the expert reviewer.
However, that is not in the scope of this document.
Ietf mailing list