ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09.txt> (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP

2011-02-01 13:26:10


On 2/1/2011 11:14 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
...
Joe, the IESG had a fair amount of negative experience with this style
of review just before  I joined; this type of review was just about out
of the process leading to blocking objections when I joined as an AD.

I think that being able to discuss concerns with reviewers and being
able to consider potential conflicts and other issues mean that an open
dialogue with identified reviewers is an important part of our
process. Anonymous contributions may have their place in the WG process,
but I don't think they should have a place in expert review oor blocking
objections to documents.  So, as an individual I strongly support making
expert reviewers identities public.

Such reviews occur elsewhere in the IETF as well; it's not a requirement that every review include a list of all consulted parties. This is no different. IANA is the one making the decision of how to use the advice they receive.

I.e., please explain where in RFC 5226 that the process of Expert Review is expected to be a dialogue.

I.e., the dialogue is with IANA, not the reviewer.

The point isn't that reviewers MUST be anonymous; many of them do engage in direct conversation with the applicant. However, we try to avoid that because we want IANA involved in all conversation, and we want IANA to approve that conversation as it goes along. So, ultimately, the discussion is really, IMO, with IANA, not the reviewer per se, which is why the identity of the reviewer is irrelevant.

Joe
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>