Re: registries and designated experts

"Martin J. Dürst" <> Sun, 17 June 2012 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94D621F85D4 for <>; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 05:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.445
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.445 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.069, BAYES_40=-0.185, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1AskZJCZyJG2 for <>; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 05:55:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEEC621F85C2 for <>; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 05:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by (secret/secret) with SMTP id q5HCtUuj008260 for <>; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:55:30 +0900
Received: from (unknown []) by with smtp id 2a49_0eb2_b7cba7ae_b87b_11e1_9371_001d096c5782; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:55:29 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([]:37951) by with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S15D3CE8> for <> from <>; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:55:30 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:55:19 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thomas Narten <>
Subject: Re: registries and designated experts
References: <><> <><><><><> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: John C Klensin <>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <>,, SM <>
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: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 12:55:39 -0000

Hello Thomas, others,

On 2012/06/13 21:48, Thomas Narten wrote:
>> Maybe an IESG statement on this respect can help here.
> Is the existing text in RFC 5226 not sufficient? It contains extensive
> text about the purpose and role of designated experts, and was revised
> substantially the last time around to try and find a good middle
> ground between being overly prescriptive and giving experts a "blank
> check" to do what they want.
> Nothing in the discussion I've seen so far in this thread seems at
> odds with or beyond what is already in RFC 5226 (but I may be biased).

I have quickly looked through RFC 5226, and found Section 5.3
( which answers in part 
the specific issue that this thread started with, but not in the 
direction that we would need this time.

What that section says is that if the IETF/IESG thinks they need to 
register something in a registry, but the procedures for that registry 
are written too restrictive, then the procedures can be bypassed (but 
they should be fixed as soon as possible).

This time, the situation was somewhat reversed: The expert approved the 
registration, and this fact was then used as a claim that IETF Last Call 
comments on the item registered were no longer appropriate.

I'm with Ned in that I don't think that IETF consensus should be 
involved in any but the most important registrations and most blatant 
registration mistakes, because there are many registrations that don't 
need standardization.

But I really hope that we all agree that registrations can't preempt 
IETF Last Call comments or consensus. I didn't find anything about this 
aspect of registrations and expert reviews in RFC 5226, but maybe I 
didn't look hard enough?

Regards,    Martin.