Re: [CCAMP] Request for a "Designated Expert" to carve "OTN Signal Type" subregistry

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Adrian,

Thanks for being so proactive on this.  Your comments should be addressed 
as part of the normal wg process. I see no need for any AD action at thus time.

Zafar,

I'm glad to see you being a zealous author for the recently adopted draft. 
What AD action are you requesting /issue do you see?

Lou


On November 8, 2014 9:54:20 PM "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> > This is with regard to the recently adapted
> draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-00
>
> There is no such draft in the repository.
> I looked pretty carefully. Please let me know if I messed up.
>
> > (was:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-02). 
>
> OK, I can refer to that draft.
> Interesting that the header of the file says "PCE Working Group"
>
> > As you know, the "OTN Signal Type" subregistry is currently defined
> > to use the Standards Action registration policy as defined by [RFC5226].
> > draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-00 directs that both
> > Standards Action and Specification Required policies be applied to
> > this subregistry. 
> >
> > In the light of the above, can you please help us get a Designated
> > Expert to review and carve "OTN Signal Type" subregistry?
>
> Not yet.
> Let's wait until the working group has consensus, the IETF has consensus, and
> both the IESG and IANA have reviewed the document.
> DEs are not normally assigned until the moment the RFC is approved, or even
> later.
>
> Why do you think you need a DE now?
>
> While I have the document open...
>
> Section 1
>    Why is paragraph 1 relevant to this document?
>
> ---
>
> Section 1
>    This document extends "OTN Signal Type" subregistry...
>
> I don't think you are extending the registry, just redefining the assignment
> policy.
>
> ---
>
> Section 2
>
> In defining that two assignment policies be applied to this registry you 
> need to
> be careful to define what you mean. Do Standards Track documents need DE 
> review?
> What happens if the DE disagrees? Do you mean that this is an either/or
> situation?
>
> ---
>
> As per Section 3.2 of RFC 5226, when a registry is defined to need DE review,
> the defining document should include criteria for the DE to follow when making
> assignment decisions. You need to write that section.
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>