Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tsvwg-iana-ports-09.txt> (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry) to BCP

[Michelle Cotton <[e-mail]>]

We are changing that process right now.  We have begun to report the
reviewer (with the review) in the email to the requester.

We just need to make sure this small change is communicated to those experts
that are part of review "teams" as their individual names are not published
on the main list of registries.

I don't think it needs to go in this document as this is already in
progress.

Let me know if you have any questions.

--Michelle



On 1/27/11 5:10 PM, "Joe Touch" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 1/27/2011 12:52 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
> ...
>>> Small Issue #3: I object to anonymous review
>>> 
>>> The current review is anonymous and this draft does not seem to change that.
>>> I don't like anonymous review - it's not how we do things at IETF and it
>>> encourages really bad behavior. I have several emails with an expert
>>> reviewer relayed via IANA where the conversation was going no where - once I
>>> knew the name of the reviewer, the whole conversation changed and stuff
>>> quickly came back to the realm of sane. I'm not willing to forward these
>>> emails to the list as that would just not be kind to anyone but I am happy
>>> to forward them to the IESG if they think looking at them is really
>>> critical.
>> 
>> I can see your point, and I personally have no problem with disclosing the
>> reviewer identity. What do others think?
> 
> AFAICT, the experts team reports to IANA. We make recommendations to
> them. They are the ones who have the conversation with the applicant.
> They can take our advice or not - that's their decision.
> 
> I.e., we are advisors to IANA.
> 
> Further, many requests are handled my multiple reviewers.
> 
> Many of us do have specific conversations with applicants, and identify
> ourselves when that happens, but it doesn't seem important to codify
> that in this doc.
> 
> Again, this doc is about the unification of the registries. It is NOT
> about all the other policies that govern them. The info that's there is
> advisory ONLY (it is not binding to IANA).
> 
> Joe