Re: registries and designated experts

Dave Crocker <> Tue, 12 June 2012 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C11321F86FA for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rw4d6zjZE-MB for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF32421F86F9 for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5CEu2u2022757 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:56:02 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:56:01 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <>
Subject: Re: registries and designated experts
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
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 14:56:04 -0000

On 6/12/2012 7:19 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> it's not the role of the designated expert to
> act as a gatekeeper with respect to the technical merits of the
> technologies that trigger registration requests. It might be good to
> have a wider discussion about the purpose of registries and the role of
> designated experts, but IMHO it's not correct to conclude that a
> technology is acceptable just because the designated expert didn't
> object to the registrations related to that technology.

It's almost inevitable that many designated experts will, in fact, act 
as gatekeepers.  For example the distinction between "won't do damage" 
vs. "looks like excellent engineering" is more subtle in practice than 
one might think.  Especially absent very precise specification of review 
criteria and absent actual training of the reviewers.

While, yes, protocol specs that define the registry and review of its 
entries are supposed to provide the necessary details that do the 
distinction, I believe such texts do not get deep review for 
interpretive robustness.  That is, I doubt they are bullet-proofed 
against the vagaries of differerent readers who might be doing the 
reviews or writing text for them.

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking