Re: registries and designated experts

Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> Fri, 15 June 2012 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <GK@ninebynine.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA40B21F8673 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.323
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.207, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rhdSkOkSm44F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay3.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay3.mail.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB6BF21F8672 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.207]) by relay3.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1SfaSQ-0006fp-CB; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:37:14 +0100
Received: from arl-d-234.arl.org ([192.100.21.234] helo=Eskarina.local) by smtp1.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1SfaSQ-0005jV-4E; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:37:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4FDB1510.40702@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:57:20 +0100
From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: registries and designated experts
References: <4FCDD499.7060206@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4FCDE96E.5000109@cs.tcd.ie> <4FD7083A.6080502@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4FD74FFC.3050905@stpeter.im> <4FD75881.3080102@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4FD75881.3080102@dcrocker.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 05:41:05 -0700
Cc: "draft-farrell-decade-ni@tools.ietf.org" <draft-farrell-decade-ni@tools.ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:37:25 -0000

On 12/06/2012 15:56, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> 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.

The effect may sometimes be similar to being a gatekeeper but, speaking for 
myself, that's not how I see my role.  When responding to IANA review requests, 
I may often have and express technical opinions about a proposal, but I try to 
be clear that these are separate from my view of whether or not the registry 
requirements are satisfied.  And where I feel that registration requirements are 
not satisfied, I try to provide indicators as to what the submitter might do to 
create satisfaction.  So it doesn't *feel* like being a gatekeeper.

> 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.

My experience is that no amount of review completely bullet-proofs a spec 
against misinterpretation.  So we do the best we can.

#g
--