Re: registries and designated experts (was: Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07, major design issue (one or two URI schemes))

Barry Leiba <> Tue, 12 June 2012 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9661C21F8690 for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.976
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TqHMByMFbNGQ for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27B821F8681 for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:07:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lagv3 with SMTP id v3so5339602lag.31 for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=cWdz+RJjxmkVQADk42OStpNuxOpJQUeGMbggr84gMAM=; b=M89Tn0n9ToP50k+hEMiKG4Z/W/IKPu7nW56ZPZ6QqtcpyyRO5BxsetkAUH83BDhR7h pnDI7HegA9oQvEZEXkkcYGDMU9vXZ/jFuNs2Xwbea+N1nQZh4405J1k/BQHAhiVK7JZb PdJRanEaWsL9nq77GBXrmsa/9i2dZG4mVdbji3102HbxpJQrZSRjfZp11L2TLBIPM/1X RfqjSjDOgOlysHuSMU2APSsj09D9XGiMa6fCN8usstZ4SGxzSbIpZZuCYNKphX7wzLP0 YGlmOXxyidL0v69/G+5/1/9OhjwNV3/hYRpB9Gud9FAVs/Rb/SQrDMZNCC6qTRHjq2eZ rZYA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id q2mr4682233lbj.44.1339513674660; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 17:07:54 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: GAwItS6Y_7XriqUS4cNyMb1Bg8g
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: registries and designated experts (was: Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07, major design issue (one or two URI schemes))
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e0cb4efe32a2bff9f204c247d4c7"
Cc: Graham Klyne <>, IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:07:56 -0000

Martin said:
> Second, designated experts are there to check for minimum requirements
> for a registration, and to give advice as they see fit (and have time).
> I'm myself a designated expert on "Character Sets", and I have
> definitely in the past approved, and would again in the future approve,
> registrations for stuff on which I would complain strongly if the
> question was "is this a good technical solution".

There's no one correct statement about what designated experts do, or are
supposed to do.  Some specs that create designated experts give more or
fewer instructions to the expert than others do.  Some give none at all.
 The desognated expert should be doing what the specification that defined
the registry said the expert should do, to the best of the expert's
interpretation.  That might involve more gatekeeping in some cases, and
less in others, and there's always an appeal path available.

It's my opinion that more specifications that create Expert Review or
Specification Required registries should be specifying what they expect
from the designated experts.