Martin,
On 06/17/2012 01:55 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
This time, the situation was somewhat reversed: The expert approved the
registration, and this fact was then used as a claim that IETF Last Call
comments on the item registered were no longer appropriate.
I'm sorry, but that's just not accurate. The specific comment (of
yours) was to the effect that two registrations should become
one. I believe its fair to say that that is something one
could have expected to be raised on the uri-review list, given
the comments typically sent to that list, and the comments we
got there on our I-D, and so I brought that up when you (who
often comment on that list), only raised this during IETF LC.
At no point did I claim that IETF LC comments were no longer
appropriate, and indeed I've been responding al all IETF LC
comments on their merits, including this one of yours. But,
yes, I do think that your specific issue (essentially, not doing
one of the registrations) would have been better raised
earlier on uri-review, and as the one asking for the registrations
it does feel like having to jump through the same bureaucratic
hoops a second time.
However, perhaps there is a generic issue in that its not clear
whether one is doing paperwork or getting substantive technical
review when one requests a registration, at least to the
uri-review list. I'm not sure how many other *-review lists
might have the same situation.
That could be clarified I guess. If that list is just to check
the paperwork, then I'd guess that pretty much all technical
comment ought be re-directed elsewhere. If that list is for
substantive technical review, then seeing frequent contributors
to that list first bringing up issues at IETF LC would seem
noteworthy. (I'm not saying such issues ought be ignored, but
they maybe ought be treated as we would the case of a WG
participant making comments on a topic only after WGLC.)
S