Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-02

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

Christian, could you take a look at the minor issues & nits and submit  
a draft to resolve theses - if some of them don't need to be changed,  
just sort that on this email thread.

Peter, on the topic of the Major issue...

The existing procedures require the review to happen at IETF. Almost  
all the work on this is actually happening at ITU right now so we are  
trying to make it easier for the ITU folks get the approvals they need  
done. We will select an expert reviewer that is closely involved with  
the ITU folks working on this as they are much more aware of all the  
ongoing work is and can catch conflicts, duplicated efforts etc.

This should make it easier to get things approved than the current  
process while at the same time helping improve the actual quality of  
the review.

Hope that helps.

Cullen

On Feb 23, 2009, at 11:50 AM, McCann Peter-A001034 wrote:

> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)  
> reviewer
> for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-groves-megaco-pkgereg-02
> Reviewer: Peter J. McCann
> Review Date: 23 February 2009
> IETF LC End Date: 23 February 2009
> IESG Telechat date: unknown
>
> Summary: Ready with nits, if the IESG wants to change the IANA
> considerations for H.248.
>
> Major issues:
>
> This document inserts an expert review procedure in the allocation
> policy for new H.248 packages/error codes/service change/profiles.
> This is probably a good thing but I have not been following the
> history of the H.248 effort so I'm not aware of any problems that
> have occurred under the existing allocation policies.  The IESG
> should weigh carefully whether the allocation policy really needs
> changing.
>
>
> Minor issues:
>
> In a couple of places the document gives special treatment to
> "recognized standards bodies."  How does a standards body become
> "recognized" by the IETF?  Should we specify that a liaison  
> relationship
> must be in place?
>
> Section 4.2 states that a specification is required for review by
> the designated expert, but it seems to allow that this specification
> isn't publicly available.  Should there be a requirement at least for
> public packages that the specification be public?
>
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> Section 1:
> OLD:
>   Given this situation, it is appropriate that the H.248/Package
>   Package definition
> NEW:
>   Given this situation, it is appropriate that the H.248/Package
>   definition
>
> Section 4.2:
> OLD:
>   2) The package requester shall provide a contact name, email and
>   postal addresses for that contact shall be specified.
> NEW:
>   2) The package requester shall provide a contact name, and an email
> and
>   postal address for that contact shall be specified.
>
> OLD:
>   provided available for review
> NEW:
>   provided and available for review
>
> OLD:
>   5) Package names are allocated on a first come-first served if all
>   other conditions are met.
> NEW:
>   5) Package names are allocated on a first come-first served basis if
> all
>   other conditions are met.
>
> Section 5.1:
> OLD:
>   shall forward to received information
> NEW:
>   shall forward the received information
>
> Section 5.2:
> OLD:
>   On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall  
> forward
>   to received information (i.e. the Error Code text (Specification
>   required) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See section 4.3).
> NEW:
>   On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall  
> forward
>   the received information (i.e. the Error Code text and required
> specification)
>   to the IESG appointed expert for review (See section 4.3).
>
> Section 5.3:
> OLD:
>   On the request for an Error Code registration, the IANA shall  
> forward
>   to received information (i.e. the Service Change Reason text
>   (Specification required) to the IESG appointed expert for review  
> (See
>   section 4.4).
> NEW:
>   On the request for an Service Change Reason registration, the IANA
> shall forward
>   the received information (i.e. the Service Change Reason text and
>   required specification) to the IESG appointed expert for review (See
>   section 4.4).