Re: registries and designated experts

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Wed, 13 June 2012 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>
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 7B41521F852C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 IJz7FTtoxrxt for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F354821F850C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:18:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OGMRAJZEQO0035EU@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OGIRBMUA6O0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01OGMRAIUL7I0006TF@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:49:29 -0700
Subject: Re: registries and designated experts
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:53:07 +0900" <m21uljep18.wl%randy@psg.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
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> <40qft756nm9l1g4q5asm5voc0jg2ng0pgl@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <m21uljep18.wl%randy@psg.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, 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: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:18:24 -0000

> > It seems to me that if an expert reviewer thinks that something will do
> > notable harm, they should decline to make a decision and defer it to the
> > IETF at large

> so they are not an expert, they are a rubber stamp?  bs.

+1

More generally, the notion of appealing to the "IETF at large", whatever that
is supposed to consist of, isn't part of the written policy of any registry I'm
aware of. There's supposed to be an appeals process (usually to the IESG), and
that's the obvious process to invoke should an issue come up that a reviewer
feels uncomfortable resolving directly.

Additionally, given the widespread use of IANA registries by people and
organizations not connected to the IETF in any way - and this usage is
something we want to encourage - appealing registrations to the IETF at large
is a really bad idea.

				Ned