Re: registries and designated experts

Stephen Farrell <> Sun, 17 June 2012 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E8221F8639 for <>; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 06:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id okBbICJapTCP for <>; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 06:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:770:10:200:889f:cdff:fe8d:ccd2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D74A21F8629 for <>; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 06:33:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0225153718; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 14:33:13 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:user-agent:from:date:message-id:received :received:x-virus-scanned; s=cs; t=1339939993; bh=Psr3IjjYbBBQS3 GtyCLfrrfKYUbUzvrLbfbwN4r/zVI=; b=fwH3Dfiy/BJGeeq9Z9Vu5v4H9lOx91 37+C9170NVIKbtgMsjPGjBtHd+V0WUJHT3/ac4XlhlnSQ8J5FmQqhlaqa11A5O4/ uYfrh1Asfp6iv//nFAxRrIuylgqesh9AfDhDgga5IoooiywH9ty6KOTGVQrB5g3w 8wHLUND3CC7GskHbFu1bVEgK3bIB5nhuqM4RW9xLPrJ8j0UnAoQbZvNOX/cEovQs UiW4wI3cdCHSfILMzplmYSv85I1VjtkHlb2FdG+QI8PtlQrcc5GfOy3OrLgY4YWn CFSDbx+2Lkwj3TApTt/jv2czayz5Ux33cJvP06cofz4wJgbEDiPhqtuw==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with ESMTP id HHSz9z3QpsoQ; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 14:33:13 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8E9E1153717; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 14:33:03 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 14:33:02 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <>
Subject: Re: registries and designated experts
References: <><> <><><><><> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Thomas Narten <>, John C Klensin <>,, SM <>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <>
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: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:33:16 -0000


On 06/17/2012 01:55 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> This time, the situation was somewhat reversed: The expert approved the
> registration, and this fact was then used as a claim that IETF Last Call
> comments on the item registered were no longer appropriate.

I'm sorry, but that's just not accurate. The specific comment (of
yours) was to the effect that two registrations should become
one. I believe its fair to say that that is something one
could have expected to be raised on the uri-review list, given
the comments typically sent to that list, and the comments we
got there on our I-D, and so I brought that up when you (who
often comment on that list), only raised this during IETF LC.

At no point did I claim that IETF LC comments were no longer
appropriate, and indeed I've been responding al all IETF LC
comments on their merits, including this one of yours. But,
yes, I do think that your specific issue (essentially, not doing
one of the registrations) would have been better raised
earlier on uri-review, and as the one asking for the registrations
it does feel like having to jump through the same bureaucratic
hoops a second time.

However, perhaps there is a generic issue in that its not clear
whether one is doing paperwork or getting substantive technical
review when one requests a registration, at least to the
uri-review list. I'm not sure how many other *-review lists
might have the same situation.

That could be clarified I guess. If that list is just to check
the paperwork, then I'd guess that pretty much all technical
comment ought be re-directed elsewhere. If that list is for
substantive technical review, then seeing frequent contributors
to that list first bringing up issues at IETF LC would seem
noteworthy. (I'm not saying such issues ought be ignored, but
they maybe ought be treated as we would the case of a WG
participant making comments on a topic only after WGLC.)