+1 and I would like the process document to require that the
registrant is advised of this right.
The delays I have incurred in getting code points assigned have not
been due to issues with the request. They have been caused by the DE
not responding. Or responding that they plan to get to the request. Or
approving the request and then not acting on it. Then when reminded,
starting the whole thing again.
Having specific deadlines is probably a good way of persuading people
who have taken on rather too many responsibilities that being the DE
on a registry should not be one of them or if it is that it needs the
same attention as the ones that do come with tight deadlines.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 19/01/2016 21:46, Eliot Lear wrote:
...
I also agree with Phill on one other point: it seems perfectly
reasonable that should a request for an assignment be denied, the IANA
should as a matter of course refer the applicant to RFC 5226 regarding
the right of appeal. That process is there to allow for oversight of
the designated technical expert and not to test the ability of an
applicant to find the right RFC.
Emphatically +1.
Also, any expert review that takes longer than, say, one month should
be red-flagged in some way. RFC 5226 talks about "a few weeks" and
"a reasonable period of time" but doesn't really have teeth, so
it's unclear how long is too long and when a delay is itself a valid
groaund for appeal.
It's late in the day, but I think draft-leiba-cotton-iana-5226bis
should fix that. Like:
OLD:
Appeals of protocol parameter registration decisions can be made
using the normal IETF appeals process...
NEW:
Appeals against protocol parameter registration decisions and
unreasonable delays in such decisions can be made using the normal
IETF appeals process...
Brian