On 12/06/2012 15:56, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 6/12/2012 7:19 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
it's not the role of the designated expert to
act as a gatekeeper with respect to the technical merits of the
technologies that trigger registration requests. It might be good to
have a wider discussion about the purpose of registries and the role of
designated experts, but IMHO it's not correct to conclude that a
technology is acceptable just because the designated expert didn't
object to the registrations related to that technology.
It's almost inevitable that many designated experts will, in fact, act as
gatekeepers. For example the distinction between "won't do damage" vs. "looks
like excellent engineering" is more subtle in practice than one might think.
Especially absent very precise specification of review criteria and absent
actual training of the reviewers.
The effect may sometimes be similar to being a gatekeeper but, speaking for
myself, that's not how I see my role. When responding to IANA review requests,
I may often have and express technical opinions about a proposal, but I try to
be clear that these are separate from my view of whether or not the registry
requirements are satisfied. And where I feel that registration requirements are
not satisfied, I try to provide indicators as to what the submitter might do to
create satisfaction. So it doesn't *feel* like being a gatekeeper.
While, yes, protocol specs that define the registry and review of its entries
are supposed to provide the necessary details that do the distinction, I believe
such texts do not get deep review for interpretive robustness. That is, I doubt
they are bullet-proofed against the vagaries of differerent readers who might be
doing the reviews or writing text for them.
My experience is that no amount of review completely bullet-proofs a spec
against misinterpretation. So we do the best we can.