So IANA has a huge amount of technical expertise and takes maintaing the
registries very seriously. I've seen them catch technical mistakes that made
all the way through WG and IESG review. I've got huge respect for technical
competence of IANA and in particular Michelle. So I'm not questions that but I
don't recall seeing them override an expert on a technical issue. I'd be happy
to hear of examples but lets consider the example I am actually concerned about
here.
I put in a request for a latency sensitive protocol that uses DTLS and request
a different port for the secure version. Joe as expert review says we should
redesign the protocol to use something like STARTLS and run on one port. I
assert, with very little evidence, that will not meet the latency goals of the
protocol. Joe does not agree.
So Michelle, in that case, would you be willing to override Joe? I'm sure you
would be willing to help facilitate any conversations, bring in other people
such as ADs that can help etc. I was sort of working on the assumption that you
would not override Joe in this case and the the only path forward would be an
appeal to Lars but perhaps that is just a bad assumption on my part. Appeals
are really the worst way possible to resolve things. I have a hard time
imagining that IANA would want to engage in a technical discussion to resolve
this and instead relies on the expert reviewer. I'll note that the expert
review may report to IANA but they are selected by and replaced by the IESG.
The important point here is that I really don't care if it is Joe or IANA that
is saying no - I think this document should be clear that this BCP can not be
used as grounds for rejecting the request for a second port for security.
On Jan 30, 2011, at 12:09 , Michelle Cotton wrote:
David has said this well. Thank you.
Please let me know if there are any other questions.
--Michelle
On 1/30/11 10:52 AM, "David Conrad" <drc(_at_)virtualized(_dot_)org> wrote:
Cullen,
On Jan 29, 2011, at 8:54 PM, Cullen Jennings 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.
Joe is closer.
In general, IANA staff are not technical experts in any of the wide variety
of
areas for which they are asked to provide registry services. As such, they
rely on technical experts to provide input/advice/recommendations. In the
past, there were some very rare cases in which the advice provided by the
technical experts was deemed insufficient and IANA staff looked to the ADs or
the IESG for additional input. However, at least historically, IANA staff
viewed the maintenance of the registries as their responsibility (at the
direction of the IESG), not the technical experts' responsibility. I would be
surprised if this had changed.
Regards,
-drc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Cullen Jennings
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf