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

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

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