Re: registries and designated experts

Bjoern Hoehrmann <> Wed, 13 June 2012 01:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D849521F86EC for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QOY8cFNAsrib for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 93B6721F86C8 for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2012 01:15:49 -0000
Received: from (EHLO HIVE) [] by (mp029) with SMTP; 13 Jun 2012 03:15:49 +0200
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+K12o4KByKTwFfic6HjrJ85eLZ9Ak/8SyYTmdrge OQZHRY0vkpEXtx
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <>
Subject: Re: registries and designated experts
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 03:15:54 +0200
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: "" <>, Graham Klyne <>, IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 01:15:53 -0000

* Dave Crocker wrote:
>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.

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; and any registration procedure that does not allow that
is broken. (Similarily, let's assume that something will do harm, but an
expert reviewer fails to see it, but others do: they should have the a-
bility to appeal expert reviewer decisions, so the matter can be brought
to the attention of more and possibly better qualified people; if that
is not an option, the process is broken; if, on the other hand, nobody
cares to use available procedures, including making a big fuss over it
in the regular press, or whatever, then it probably was not important e-
Björn Höhrmann · ·
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 ·
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ·