On 1/29/11 9:34 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 1/29/2011 8:54 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Jan 27, 2011, at 17:10 , Joe Touch wrote:
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 think you are pretty misrepresenting the situation. My impression
of the reality of the situation is that if the IANA did not like the
advice of the expert reviewer, they might ask the AD to override but
short of that they pretty much do whatever the expert says.
As per my other note:
RFC2780 specifies Expert Review as *one* of the viable means by which
IANA can decide on transport protocol port assignments. The term "Expert
Review" is defined in RFC 2434.
Neither document binds IANA to use the advice of a reviewer.
Further, there is no single reviewer - we have a team, consulting each
other on occasion, and all decisions are seen by multiple reviewers.
However, none of that is worth codifying. If IANA or the IESG doesn't
like how we serve them, they can replace us - at any time, for any
reason, and there is an appeals process for decisions of the expert team:
Any decisions made by the designated expert can be appealed using the
normal IETF appeals process as outlined in Section 6.5 of [IETF-
Now that this has been made clear to me, I am *much* more worried about
the wording in the current draft. The above emphatic statements means
that IANA can reject a request for an IETF-approved protocol that needs
two ports without recourse. As Cullen and others have pointed out, there
are sometimes very good technical reasons for a particular protocol to
need to have two ports.
The document should be amended to say that protocols with IETF consensus
should get as many ports as it needs, regardless of what IANA or the
expert reviewer thinks. This makes it the responsibility of the IETF
consensus process to follow the guidelines in this document.
Ietf mailing list