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

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

I've been thinking more about this thread and my concerns about this draft. I was originally looking for the draft to have advice for the expert review team that gave them guidance on what the IETF thought was all right to approve or not approve. It's become clear that this draft does not have that advice and is not likely to get it in the very short term. This BCP will empower the expert reviewer to reject or approve just about any request. Appeals are not the best way to balance putting that power because they are incredibly corrosive and time consuming to everyone involved. I think this thread somewhat suggests an alternative approach for a check and balance. 

What do people think of the idea of: for all ports requests, the request and the expert reviewer reposes including reason for accepting or rejecting them need to be posted to a public email list. This seems like a simple way to help mitigate this issue and it will help educate people writing a port request to know what types of issues they need to address and what would be appropriate or not. 

Pros & cons of this idea?


On Feb 8, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:

>> I don't see that "public identity" (of expert reviewers) is required for "interactive discussion".  
>> Or would anonymous interaction fail a Turing test of some kind?
> 
> Public identity is required for reviewer accountability. It is easy to imagine how withholding registration of some required numbers may delay a competitor's products. The best protection against shade is sunlight.
> 
> -- Christian Huitema
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf