Re: [apps-review] Feeling kind of confused about draft-merrick-jms-uri-12

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, January 27, 2011 09:44 -0800 SM
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> [following up on apps-review]
> 
> At 23:20 26-01-11, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Remember too that, as Mark has already pointed out in a
>> different way, the main point of a provisional registration is
>> to lower the odds that the same protocol identifier string
>> will be used to designate two different protocols.
> 
> Mark and you have commented on this case.  There was a comment
> from Larry (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg0
> 2096.html ).
> 
>> I am not advising this in any way and I personally don't think
>> it would be worth the effort, but, in the interest of
>> procedural knowledge and consistency, RFC 2026 does give
>> anyone who feels strongly about this decision the right to
>> appeal it.
> 
> I suggest talking to the Apps Area Directors before taking
> that path.

Talking with the Apps Area Directors is the first (and normally
last) step on that path.  The difference is only the level of
formality.  Remember that the purpose of the IETF Appeals model
is to get a careful second look at areas of disagreement and to
attempt to see if agreement can be reached, not to initiate or
proceed with a judicial function of any sort.

> When a request for review come from the Apps Area Directors, I
> pick a reviewer for the assignment.  There was a case where
> the document was over 300 pages and there was a short
>...
> It has been difficult to get all the reviews done.  I value
> the contributions made by Tim and all members of the team.  I
> may voice my discontent to the Apps Area ADs if a reviewer
> mentions that his/her work is not given any consideration.

I don't believe that anything improper has occurred in the
review process or even in the IESG decision.   I appreciate your
review of the history.

I do believe that, if people feel strongly that accepting the
document and registration was a seriously bad idea, even after
they are sure they understand the nature of a provisional
registration, then they should try to understand the IESG's
reasoning from the Apps ADs and/or ask that the decision be
reviewed.

It would also be quite reasonable for people who find themselves
in that position to request additional text -- in a revised
announcement statement, in the registry, or in the document as
it will be published -- to suggest that.  Whether that could be
negotiated with the Apps ADs or required a formal appeal would
be up to the ADs and the IESG.

I am not personally convinced that either trying to get a
different decision or trying to get more clear disclaimers or
warnings into the text would be worthwhile.  But the IETF is
periodically accused of having procedures that work only for
those who know how to use them and I periodically feel an
obligation to explain possibly-useful procedures to those whose
only other recourse would be whining and/or ranting.

    john