Sam Hartman wrote:
"Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Altman <jaltman(_at_)secure-endpoints(_dot_)com>
writes:
Jeffrey> Sam Hartman wrote:
>> Unless there is strong support for the more complex
>> registration process in the draft, we'd like to go to expert
>> review.
Jeffrey> The technical argument in favor of a review list, whether
Jeffrey> a special list for this purpose or some pre-existing list
Jeffrey> such as SecDir, is that it is not always easy to find
Jeffrey> experts who are familiar with both of the protocols being
Jeffrey> bound. As a result, having more reviewers is a safety
Jeffrey> net. This is especially important for reviews of
Jeffrey> security protocols.
How would you feel about an optional review list?
IESG experience has shown that mandatory review steps in previous
registries tend to add frustration. There are cases where optional
review lists do add value.
--Sam
I'm not sure what the issue is here. The requirement that the draft
makes is that there be a list and that after posting to the list that
the assigned expert wait two weeks for any reviews that might be
received before making a decision. I do not believe that a two week
review period is burdensome nor do I believe that having a public list
that interested parties can monitor is a bad thing.
Perhaps if you described the problems the IESG believes might occur with
this process I might feel differently.
Jeffrey Altman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf