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

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

On 2/1/2011 11:14 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
...
> Joe, the IESG had a fair amount of negative experience with this style
> of review just before  I joined; this type of review was just about out
> of the process leading to blocking objections when I joined as an AD.
>
> I think that being able to discuss concerns with reviewers and being
> able to consider potential conflicts and other issues mean that an open
> dialogue with identified reviewers is an important part of our
> process. Anonymous contributions may have their place in the WG process,
> but I don't think they should have a place in expert review oor blocking
> objections to documents.  So, as an individual I strongly support making
> expert reviewers identities public.

Such reviews occur elsewhere in the IETF as well; it's not a requirement 
that every review include a list of all consulted parties. This is no 
different. IANA is the one making the decision of how to use the advice 
they receive.

I.e., please explain where in RFC 5226 that the process of Expert Review 
is expected to be a dialogue.

I.e., the dialogue is with IANA, not the reviewer.

The point isn't that reviewers MUST be anonymous; many of them do engage 
in direct conversation with the applicant. However, we try to avoid that 
because we want IANA involved in all conversation, and we want IANA to 
approve that conversation as it goes along. So, ultimately, the 
discussion is really, IMO, with IANA, not the reviewer per se, which is 
why the identity of the reviewer is irrelevant.

Joe