ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: registries and designated experts

2012-06-13 04:09:07




-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:05 AM
To: John C Klensin
Cc: SM; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: registries and designated experts

John,

On 2012-06-12 19:38, John C Klensin wrote:

--On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 19:13 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

The above is at odds with standardization.  The last reason
does not apply for Expert review.
I don't understand that statement. RFC 5226 says, in Section 2
about "Why Management of a Namespace May Be Necessary":

"  A third, and perhaps most important, consideration concerns
potential    impact on the interoperability of unreviewed
extensions."

One of the specific considerations for designated experts in
section 3.3 is

"      - the extension would cause problems with existing
deployed         systems."

It seems clear that interoperability is a primary concern for
any expert review.

Brian, Subramanian,

I've with Barry on this.  The details of the expectations of an
expert reviewer, including the thresholds for approval, should
be specified in whatever document sets up the particular
registry.  One size does not fit all; "Expert Review" is a
designation of a mechanism and not a set of criteria.

I completely agree. My point was only that the baseline set by
RFC 5226 is clear that interoperability is a criterion. The
details vary case by case and should be written down.

I also agree with what I think Randy meant - the designated
expert shouldn't be afraid to say no (or yes) in dubious
cases; that's why we designate an expert...


[[DR]] +1. 

I think that it's a good thing to provide guidelines in the RFCs for Expert 
Reviews criteria, it's better than oral tradition, they set and document the 
expectations at the time the document is approved. However guidelines are just 
guidelines, otherwise the process could have been completely automated, and the 
expert is the one called to make the firm yes/no recommendation to IANA. If at 
some point in time the guidelines are in conflict with the reality, the RFC 
should be updated, sometimes the policy changed.

Maybe an IESG statement on this respect can help here. 

Dan