On Jul 6, 2007, at 4:02 AM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
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.
The technical argument in favor of a review list, whether a special
list for this purpose or some pre-existing list such as SecDir, is
that
it is not always easy to find experts who are familiar with both of
the
protocols being bound. As a result, having more reviewers is a safety
net. This is especially important for reviews of security protocols.
What's the scope of this review? Are we asking the expert/list to
merely
review the appropriateness of the registration request, or are we
asking the
expert/list to review, in addition to the appropriateness of the
registration
request, the merit of the technical specifications that rely on the
requested
value?
It seems to me that we can limit the scope of the review to the
former (as
suggested by the I-D), and then Expert Review is more than
adequate. If others
prefer the latter, then you'd need to Require Specification (and
change the
wording of the I-D).
-- Kurt
I do not believe that the registration process defined in this
draft is
particularly burdensome. It is a well defined process with time
limits
that will provide a predictable response time for requesters. It
doesn't limit the Area Director's ability to select an expert to
perform
the review. It simply provides for transparency and public comment on
the registration.
I believe the registration procedure should be implemented as
described
in the draft.
Jeffrey Altman
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf