[change of subject]
On 6/12/12 3:13 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
On 2012/06/05 20:11, Stephen Farrell wrote:
<snip/>
I strongly disagree with merging ni& nih. Though that clearly
could be done, it would be an error.
There was no such comment on the uri-review list and the designated
expert was happy. That review was IMO the time for such comments
and second-guessing the designated expert at this stage seems
contrary to the registration requirements. So process-wise I
think your main comment is late.
First, if IETF Last Call is too late to make serious technical comments
on drafts, then I think we have to rename it to IETF Too-Late Call.
Second, designated experts are there to check for minimum requirements
for a registration, and to give advice as they see fit (and have time).
I'm myself a designated expert on "Character Sets", and I have
definitely in the past approved, and would again in the future approve,
registrations for stuff on which I would complain strongly if the
question was "is this a good technical solution".
Graham Klyne, the designated expert for URI scheme registrations, has
confirmed offline that he does not see his role as "expert reviewer" as
judging the technical merit of a URI scheme proposal.
By my reading, the "happiana" discussions [1] over the 12+ months have
led most participants to the conclusion that registration does not imply
standardization, and that it's not the role of the designated expert to
act as a gatekeeper with respect to the technical merits of the
technologies that trigger registration requests. It might be good to
have a wider discussion about the purpose of registries and the role of
designated experts, but IMHO it's not correct to conclude that a
technology is acceptable just because the designated expert didn't
object to the registrations related to that technology.
Peter
[1] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/happiana