Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-09

Hi,

On May 26, 2011, at 10:06 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

>>>>> in charge in the future with the "Expert Review" policy as per
>>>>> [RFC5226] for AVP types?
>>>> 
>>>> Do you mean values for the Key-Type AVP?  No such recommendations
>>> would
>>>> come from me; we had originally specified the policy as "First
> Come,
>>>> First Served"
>>>> (http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-wu-dime-local-keytran-
>>>> 03.txt)
>>>> on the simple theory that anybody who wanted to register, use &
>>>> deploy e.g. rot13 would get what they deserved ;-).  IIRC, one of
>> the
>>>> dime Chairs suggested the expert review policy, so maybe they have
>>>> some suggestions.
>>>> 
>>>> ...
>>> 
>>> [[DR]] Can you please clarify this with the chairs? If the policy is
>>> "Expert Review" criteria for reviewing requests for new Key-Type AVP
>>> values should be specified.
>> 
>> I would prefer to change the policy to "Specification Required"
> because
>> this seems to be all that is really necessary for interoperability.
>> 
> 
> [[DR]] The WG needs to agree on this change. I would like to hear the
> opinions of other WG participants and of the chair(s). 

From my experience "specification required" policy is a good choice, especially if the specification is mostly intended to be used in other SDOs outside IETF. If e.g. some SDO has a reason to use some specific key type in their system, which might be really dud from IETF point of view, what we are to block such use? At least proper documentation is out there anyway.

- Jouni (as the WG participant and the "other" chair)

> 
> Dan 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime