Thanks - yes that makes it clear and I like the way IANA handles all of this.
On Jan 31, 2011, at 9:55 , Michelle Cotton wrote:
Cullen,
We do have some technical expertise within the IANA staff, however our
expertise is more aligned with the process of creating and maintaining
registries. Part of that includes relying on the experts that the IESG
designates to make the decisions for requests that utilize the "Expert
Review" policy in RFC 5226.
In the past, if there is strong disagreement from an expert and the
requester disagrees, we have brought the Transport Area Directors into the
communications to see if all parties can come to an agreement. In almost
all cases, this is where a final decision is made. If that set of folks can
not come to a conclusion, we then would default to going to the IESG. With
all requests, if there is any uncertainty as to what decision should be
made, we go to the IESG for guidance.
We do rely on the technical expertise of the appointed experts for all
registries, but we ALWAYS have the possibility to seek guidance form the
IESG.
I don't believe we have ever had an official appeals with ports (Knocking on
wood really hard!).
Does that help?
--Michelle
On 1/31/11 8:33 AM, "Cullen Jennings" <fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
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
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