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

[Christian Groves <[e-mail]>]

Hello Peter and Cullen,

Peter, thanks for the comments. With regards to the major issue I would 
agree with Cullen's comments. In addition it's important to point out 
that the draft largely documents the process as it being implemented. 
The written description (pre this draft) doesn't actually match what is 
occurring. The draft also tries to set some review guidelines which 
again weren't documented. We have previously in the Megaco/H.248 work 
had cases where packages have been registered but basic things were 
missing or not well explained which have caused issues. By describing a 
review path we hope to pick these issues up before a package is fully 
registered.
 
Please see my comments below on the other issues marked [CNG]

Once we resolve the "recognised standards organisation" issue i'll 
provide an updated draft.

Regards, Christian

Cullen Jennings wrote:
>
> 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?
[CNG] Yes it may be good to add which bodies are recognized. Given that 
H.248/Megaco was developed jointly the people who came mainly from IETF 
thought "IETF Liaison relationship" and those from the ITU probably 
thought "Recognised Standards Development Organisation". I had a quick 
look at the IETF website and found: 
http://www.ietf.org/liaisonActivities.html is this the list of bodies 
who the IETF has a liaison relationship with?

The ITU-T also maintains a list of qualified Forums/Consortiums 
(http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/lists/qualified.aspx#forums). This seems to be 
a more comprehensive list of organisations (i.e. it includes national 
bodies). Could I had a pointer to this list in the draft?

 


>>
>> 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?
[CNG] I think this is really dependent on the rules of the standards 
organisation. The IETF is good that all documents are public but this 
doesn't apply to organisations such a MSF where the documents are 
available to the members but not the general public. So I don't think 
the draft can mandate that the package should be publicly available.
>>
>>
>> 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
[CNG] OK
>>
>> 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.
[CNG] OK
>>
>> OLD:
>>   provided available for review
>> NEW:
>>   provided and available for review
[CNG] OK
>>
>> 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.
[CNG] OK
>>
>> Section 5.1:
>> OLD:
>>   shall forward to received information
>> NEW:
>>   shall forward the received information
[CNG] OK
>>
>> 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).
[CNG] OK
>>
>> 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).
[CNG] OK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>