ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: On IETF policy for protocol registries

2016-01-20 13:08:13
On 20/01/2016 14:49, Barry Leiba wrote:
NEW:
   Appeals against protocol parameter registration decisions and
   unreasonable delays in such decisions can be made using the normal
   IETF appeals process...

That won't work without defining "unreasonable".

I think it will, because I think that in most cases the registrants
and the DEs and/or IANA do engage in reasonable consideration of
delays, but that once we get to a point where the DEs and the
registrant are sufficiently at odds that the registrant feels the DEs
are being unreasonable, by whatever definition, and explanations
aren't being accepted, it's time to get an AD involved and to let the
DEs get back to the other work they're doing.  We'll never be able to
define "unreasonable", but we will know such a situation when we see
it.

In any case, I think I would change it to this:

NEWNEW
   Appeals against protocol parameter registration decisions and
   unreasonable delays in such decisions can be made using the normal
   IETF dispute resolution process, including escalation to an appropriate
   Area Director, and possible a formal appeal...

(...keeping in mind that 2026 specifies that formal appeals start with
the full IESG, but that one should start by dealing with the
responsible AD first.)

Yes, that's better than my proposal. And yes, it's OK to use a judgement word
like 'unreasonable' in the description of an appeal process, because any
appeal intrinsically involves an element of judgement.

   Brian