On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi Phill,
On 1/20/16 2:54 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I don't think deliberate problems are the issue, the problem I see is
people taking on more work than they can do.
While I'm sure it's different for different people, when I'm late it's
almost certainly because I am in fact overloaded. This is a balance:
one must give deference to the reviewers or one won't have reviewers.
Or one has to seriously consider why it is necessary to have reviewers
at all and only introduce gatekeepers when they are absolutely
necessary.
And of course it should be a consideration for both working groups and
the IESG as they create and manage registries. I know of registries out
there where we would be very hard pressed to find a replacement.
And at the lower end of the stack, that is almost certainly because
the code points are scarce and the impact on the Internet core is
large.
To me,
THAT is a strategic issue that the IAB and IESG should consider taking
on. Back in the IANAPLAN working group, one person suggested to me that
the protocol parameters registry should be a wiki that could be edited.
I don't know if I would go that far, especially when it comes to certain
registries like IP version numbers, but let's acknowledge that expert
review requires resources that the IETF does itself not control.
One thing that does worry me is that these are control points and
anyone guarding a control point is liable to be a target for the
governments who want control. Crypto algorithm registries are really
problematic in that regard.
This having been said, I don't know that this is a serious problem with
the 5785 registry, nor do I believe we should make changes based on a
single request/response. My experience is that there is no perfect
policy; and actually I appreciate that Mark and company are willing to
donate their time to the cause.
I didn't choose the 5785 registry as the starting point because there
was a specific problem. I think the issue that needs to be addressed
is at the meta level. However, having meta discussions without a
specific course of action is not usually very useful in IETF.
The reason I picked on 5785 is that it was the one that the DE refused
to give any explanation of the need for when I asked in private. Then
when I raised it on the apps-area list my proposal was attacked by
another individual as 'mindbogglingly stupid' and called a liar. If
nothing else, there is very clearly evidence that any consensus that
may be claimed is the result of bullying and intimidation rather than
actual technical arguments. Most people seem to give up when faced
with that type of tactics. Which is of course the reason why they have
to end.
No, I do not think the fact that someone is a 'volunteer' is an excuse
for that type of behavior.
Having been involved in the creation of a few registries, I think that
the designation of the registry should be determined by the Internet
architecture rather than the personal taste of the people who wrote
the specs.