Re: registries and designated experts

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

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
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226#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.