IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: registries and designated experts (was: Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07, major design issue (one or two URI schemes))

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Wed, 13 June 2012 01:01 UTC

Return-Path: <derhoermi@gmx.net>
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 6909121F86DA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:01:46 -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 hykDTDw87inU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0CFDB21F8627 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2012 01:01:43 -0000
Received: from dslb-094-223-202-247.pools.arcor-ip.net (EHLO HIVE) [94.223.202.247] by mail.gmx.net (mp033) with SMTP; 13 Jun 2012 03:01:43 +0200
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18EbPViAn4EsAIkVIuSAaaVwDu2wFfAN/F73JTqSi Sc8NASyGc0wToX
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Subject: Re: registries and designated experts (was: Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07, major design issue (one or two URI schemes))
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 03:01:42 +0200
Message-ID: <ocoft7ho6dlqfuj2g96rccuht7ec2v1rlc@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <4FCDD499.7060206@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4FCDE96E.5000109@cs.tcd.ie> <4FD7083A.6080502@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4FD74FFC.3050905@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4FD74FFC.3050905@stpeter.im>
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 <GK@ninebynine.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-farrell-decade-ni@tools.ietf.org" <draft-farrell-decade-ni@tools.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 01:01:46 -0000

* Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>By my reading, the "happiana" discussions [1] over the 12+ months have
>led most participants to the conclusion that registration does not imply
>standardization, and that it's not the role of the designated expert to
>act as a gatekeeper with respect to the technical merits of the
>technologies that trigger registration requests.

My impression is the same (though I do not agree with "led").

>It might be good to have a wider discussion about the purpose of
>registries and the role of designated experts, but IMHO it's not correct
>to conclude that a technology is acceptable just because the designated
>expert didn't object to the registrations related to that technology.

I would say that decisions by designated experts have no implications
outside the confines of their role and their discretion. We could give
experts the power to decide over "is acceptable", but when we do not,
then they do not have that power, and nobody should argue otherwise.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email