On 6/12/2012 7:19 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
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.
It's almost inevitable that many designated experts will, in fact, act
as gatekeepers. For example the distinction between "won't do damage"
vs. "looks like excellent engineering" is more subtle in practice than
one might think. Especially absent very precise specification of review
criteria and absent actual training of the reviewers.
While, yes, protocol specs that define the registry and review of its
entries are supposed to provide the necessary details that do the
distinction, I believe such texts do not get deep review for
interpretive robustness. That is, I doubt they are bullet-proofed
against the vagaries of differerent readers who might be doing the
reviews or writing text for them.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net