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 <fluffy@cisco.com> Sun, 30 January 2011 04:51 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC1563A6AA9; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:51:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.582
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EX8RjcEeuyof; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:51:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D3A3A6A6C; Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:51:25 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAGt+RE2rR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACkeXOgbZoegniCVgSFE4cOg0WITA
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2011 04:54:21 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.3] (rcdn-fluffy-8711.cisco.com [10.99.9.18]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p0U4rUUO015483; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 04:54:20 GMT
Subject: 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
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D421795.70505@isi.edu>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:54:19 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EFADE5D0-BB33-4418-B743-DFEC11B12740@cisco.com>
References: <20110118212603.5733.34489.idtracker@localhost> <B88A8A82-9C4A-40AC-89AF-F177260760F7@cisco.com> <ECA80A72-4E72-44D2-B40E-C90D7197E8C5@nokia.com> <4D421795.70505@isi.edu>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, IESG IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 04:51:27 -0000

On Jan 27, 2011, at 17:10 , Joe Touch wrote:

> On 1/27/2011 12:52 AM, Lars Eggert wrote:
> ...
> >> Small Issue #3: I object to anonymous review
> >>
> >> The current review is anonymous and this draft does not seem to change that. I don't like anonymous review - it's not how we do things at IETF and it encourages really bad behavior. I have several emails with an expert reviewer relayed via IANA where the conversation was going no where - once I knew the name of the reviewer, the whole conversation changed and stuff quickly came back to the realm of sane. I'm not willing to forward these emails to the list as that would just not be kind to anyone but I am happy to forward them to the IESG if they think looking at them is really critical.
> >
> > I can see your point, and I personally have no problem with disclosing the reviewer identity. What do others think?
> 
> AFAICT, the experts team reports to IANA. We make recommendations to
> them. They are the ones who have the conversation with the applicant.
> They can take our advice or not - that's their decision.

I think you are pretty misrepresenting the situation. My impression of the reality of the situation is that if the IANA did not like the advice of the expert reviewer, they might ask the AD to override but short of that they pretty much do whatever the expert says.