Re: [Idr] Thoughts on https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hares-idr-bgp-registries-01.txt

[Eric C Rosen <[e-mail]>]

On 3/22/2017 2:36 PM, John G. Scudder wrote:
> I think Adrian nailed it when he suggested:
>
>> b. Recognition that IETF consensus trumps DE opinion. Hopefully this will never
>> arise, but it is clear (or should be) that for a Standards Action registry, if
>> there is IETF consensus for an assignment, then the DEs can warn and advise, but
>> the will of the IETF takes precedence.

According to the proposal under consideration, the DEs are the same 
people who judge whether there is IETF consensus.  The conflict of 
interest is evident.

> the reason is to try to ensure sufficient review happens before it's too late.

I'm not opposed to additional review, but that has nothing to do with 
the codepoint allocation process.  Presumably it is already the job of 
the WG chairs and/or document shepherds to obtain an adequate level of 
review.

> the concept of a WG having "standing to request changes" is inoperative

I'm looking forward to the day when you can't get a codepoint in any 
registry without the approval of the security and the operations ADs ;-)

> In parallel, Job Snijders made a useful suggestion that idnits maybe should be on the lookout for code point squatting.

That's an interesting suggestion, but has to be used carefully.  If 
someone is squatting on a codepoint, they should be encouraged to tell 
the rest of us that they are doing so.  Encouraging them to keep it a 
secret (to avoid being tagged by idnits) would be a strange way to 
encourage interoperability.

I also think that document shepherds should be on the lookout for cases 
where drafts specify codepoints or flags for new stuff without 
requesting the necessary registries to be set up.

> This leads me to wonder if we aren't going at this wrong -- if instead of using the hammer of registry policy to ensure the right WGs have been notified, we should try the screwdriver of automated tooling. The idea is registries would still be marked up with parties interested in monitoring them, but there would be no formal changes to the requirements for allocation from the registries. Those monitoring the registries (e.g., the list of people in Sue's draft) would get notifications when an allocation was proposed -- as early as possible, but no later than when the draft was sent for IETF last call. The onus would fall on them to chime in (again, as early as possible) and the regular consensus process would take its course.

This proposal makes sense.  It encourages more review without giving 
dictatorial powers to a committee of WG chairs.

> your morbid fears of red tape

I've seen many cases where IETF politicians wield red tape as a weapon; 
some do so quite expertly.  Ultimately all type fields will be 
two-octets long with FCFS registration; that's the ultimate solution to 
this particular red tape problem.