Re: registries and designated experts

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 13 June 2012 08:05 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 15F1121F86AD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 01:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.325
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.325 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.366, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 9LjZ+sv-eqi4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 01:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5685B21F846A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 01:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eaaq13 with SMTP id q13so87793eaa.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 01:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4tYPCmyH68tRk9PHkIjK70GfFso7XfGrdqKDn461LFg=; b=c0qvWfXGZTW5s/Xc5GMlcLKy91R3m2mQmDDt/7Rvai5daWMCgDshncMr8s77rkfFGV sN+dAYCayyXUuqxgTg4o4fcUnN/WF4JkSMzYg3I0K7WzDrQQpsS83K8Dl79HAoOsC6kc Nkw5xt22FIASnuuvr8vIGow6UvjWVqduvSxSeJa+3XSe5gzi10pWRpyPtiwqDETH+ZWh ZmFcXr5VYsZsD+ffxxqZj0SU6Ng3eenZiK1WqQq7ef2JeET/vRRPQa1SMtnTPH1izP+y /rhPU08JpbEocNLMIFbMz288WqrrpyMeZuPtihs9FwGcx7vJfu1t2FYnVqjU5KiRDtMk MUcg==
Received: by 10.14.188.4 with SMTP id z4mr7883482eem.228.1339574703423; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 01:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (host-2-102-216-85.as13285.net. [2.102.216.85]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c51sm4458072eei.12.2012.06.13.01.05.01 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 01:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4FD849A9.7000708@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:04:57 +0100
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
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> <6.2.5.6.2.20120612073602.09c8cbb8@resistor.net> <4FD786DC.4090403@gmail.com> <B416CA36462A3CA8C721BDF5@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <B416CA36462A3CA8C721BDF5@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: SM <sm@resistor.net>, 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 08:05:05 -0000

John,

On 2012-06-12 19:38, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> --On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 19:13 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> The above is at odds with standardization.  The last reason
>>> does not apply for Expert review.
>> I don't understand that statement. RFC 5226 says, in Section 2
>> about "Why Management of a Namespace May Be Necessary":
>>
>> "  A third, and perhaps most important, consideration concerns
>> potential    impact on the interoperability of unreviewed
>> extensions."
>>
>> One of the specific considerations for designated experts in
>> section 3.3 is
>>
>> "      - the extension would cause problems with existing
>> deployed         systems."
>>
>> It seems clear that interoperability is a primary concern for
>> any expert review.
> 
> Brian, Subramanian,
> 
> I've with Barry on this.  The details of the expectations of an
> expert reviewer, including the thresholds for approval, should
> be specified in whatever document sets up the particular
> registry.  One size does not fit all; "Expert Review" is a
> designation of a mechanism and not a set of criteria.

I completely agree. My point was only that the baseline set by
RFC 5226 is clear that interoperability is a criterion. The
details vary case by case and should be written down.

I also agree with what I think Randy meant - the designated
expert shouldn't be afraid to say no (or yes) in dubious
cases; that's why we designate an expert...

    Brian
> 
> We should, IMO, do two things in this area:
> 
> (1) When a document specifies "Expert Review" for a registry, it
> should be required to spell out the criteria the Expert is
> supposed to use, at least to the degree that isn't obvious.  If
> it doesn't, that should be grounds for "DISCUSS until fixed".
> 
> (2) If it turns out that an Expert for a particular registry is
> not behaving as people expect, part of the process for getting
> that fixed (or even complaining about it), should be to see if
> the registry-creating documents are clear about procedures and
> criteria.  If they are not, an effort to update those criteria
> would be a useful way to discuss the issues and not the
> individual expert.   Of course, Experts who knowingly violate
> clear criteria should be summarily fired -- but I think we can
> trust that to the IESG and note that it has almost never been
> necessary.
> 
>      john
> 
> 
> .
>