Re: [Idr] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Elwyn,

> The document is fine except that I think it would be appropriate to
> give a brief explanation of the reason for the change

Ah, yes, erm 😊

I understand why you're interested. Of course, we don't normally explain why IANA policies are selected. 

There's been a fair amount of debate on the list, and the result was we arrived at wanting these policies. I'd prefer not try to summarise how/why the WG ended up like this.

> and  to clarify what
> paths might be available to the expert if s/he decides to go outside the
> SHOULD in bullet  of s.1

I had a couple of rounds of discussion on this with Alvaro. That led us to move nearly every SHOULD to become a MUST, and just two remain.

As well as being the pen-holder for the document, I'm also one of the DEs, so I want to be a bit careful discussing the text that governs how I'm supposed to act.

My reading of this is:

   2.  The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
       from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group
       documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored
       documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group.

This allows consideration of other sources of requests. The alternate would be to say "The DE MAY consider requests that arise from I-Ds that have not been accepted by a working group, or other forms of documentation." That's not very helpful. But, I think the important point is that bullet 4 covers what would happen.

   8.  In the event that the document is a Working Group document or is
       AD Sponsored, and that document fails to progress to publication
       as an RFC, the Working Group chairs or AD SHOULD contact IANA to
       coordinate about marking the code points as deprecated.

This is actually guidance to the WG chairs and not the DE. The point here is, I think, that the code points don't need to be marked as deprecated, but it would be good practice. It's not clear to me why chairs wouldn't want to mark such a code point as deprecated, but "MUST" seems a bit strong. 

> Minor issues:
> s2.1, bullet2:

I think this refers to the above?

Cheers,
Adrian