Re: [Idr] Thoughts on

Jeffrey Haas <> Thu, 23 March 2017 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF18E129407 for <>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ge6zhZsg1_kb for <>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29A5512948B for <>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 00A8F1E33F; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:46:09 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:46:09 -0400
From: Jeffrey Haas <>
To: Susan Hares <>
Cc: 'Eric C Rosen' <>, "'John G. Scudder'" <>,
Message-ID: <>
References: <048701d29cd9$15204b80$3f60e280$> <022201d29ce6$ffb2ba40$ff182ec0$> <> <02dc01d2a25b$a1eca590$e5c5f0b0$> <> <> <> <050901d2a3fd$734b3e10$59e1ba30$> <> <001f01d2a401$1fc173a0$5f445ae0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <001f01d2a401$1fc173a0$5f445ae0$>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Idr] Thoughts on
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:39:47 -0000

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 02:13:07PM -0400, Susan Hares wrote:
> - If flagging for more eye review is the case, then Job's suggestion is the
> way forward.  It works for most YANG modules. 

As I noted off-list to Job, pattern matching works great when you have a
pattern that can catch it.  Better than nothing, especially if we end up
with good boilerplate text for allocations.  (It might be worth having a
chat with IANA about that.)

> - If having the expertise to review the "flag" is the issue,  1 WG being in
> charge of the situation will suffice with the current setup. 
> - if cross-review in all BGP working group is issue - then try my registries
> proposal + IETF consensus. 
> - if distrust of a single answer from WG shepherd, WG chair or set of WG
> chairs - this draft + Eric's suggestion for who can review. 

Mostly, I think once an issue is flagged, all eyes need to be pulled to one
place.  For the registries in question, IDR@ietf is probably fine, as long
as we reach out.

While I share some of Eric's dislike of process, I don't quite share his
paranoia about process blockers.  When things go awry anyway, the best we
have in process is the appeals process.  If we've reached that point, speed
is doomed anyway.

> If we can define the largest concern(s), let's we could start with that
> solution.  

I'd suggest finding a way to flag stuff is appropriate.  Nits search is one.
Allowing chairs to prod a button in datatracker that says cross-WG review is
needed might be another.  I suspect this may make good wgchairs discussion.

-- Jeff