[Idr] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: (with COMMENT)

[Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ls-registry/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

Thank you for this document.

My first observation on this document is that it does not really explain why
this change is being made.  I think that it would be helpful  for readers if
the introduction briefly explained why the allocation policy is being changed.

However, I have the same concern that Martin raised, i.e., this uses an IANA
"Expert Review" classification where the instructions to follow are broadly
"IETF Review" or "Standards Action", and I don't understand why one of those
classifications isn't being used instead.

Section 4.11 of RFC8216 explains that the use of well-known policies aids
community experience and wide understanding, and that the policies are in
increasing order of strictness.  But the use of "Expert Review" does not match
what I would naturally expect that IANA policy to mean.

Regards,
Rob