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 12:12 PM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Touch<[e-mail]>  writes:
>
>      Joe>  On 2/1/2011 11:14 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
>      Joe>  ...
>      >>  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.
>
>      Joe>  Such reviews occur elsewhere in the IETF as well; it's not a
>      Joe>  requirement that every review include a list of all consulted
>      Joe>  parties. This is no different. IANA is the one making the
>      Joe>  decision of how to use the advice they receive.
>
> Joe, RFC 5226 disagrees with you fairly significantly.
> I draw your attention in particular to section 3.2, and particularly
> call our attention to several points made there:
>
> * The designated expert is responsible for initiating and coordinating
>    the review.
>
> * Designated experts are expected to be able to defend their *decisions*
>    to the IETf community
>
> * The process is not intended to be secretive
>
> * Experts make a single clear recommendation to IANA
>
> * In cases of deadlock IESG may be pulled in to resolve disputes
>
> * When IANA receives conflicting advice, chair of pool of experts  gives
>    clear *instructions* to IANA.
> On page 10, the expert review criteria  requires approval of a
>    designated expert.
>
> I submit based on the above that the experts rather than IANA are making
> the decision; the expert has the responsibility of justifying and
> defending their decision. Moreover anonymous expert reviews violate two
> BCP requirements: they tend to a secretive process and they do not
> facilitate the expert defending their decision to the IETF community.
>
> Having read RFc 5226 my objection to anonymous expert reviews is much
> stronger than when I first read Cullen's message.

Well, based on the above, the Expert Team has a lot more power than I 
originally thought.  I agree that, given that power, making the reviewer 
known makes sense.

I will let you know that I will recommend to IANA that they should 
include a warning that any communication regarding an application made 
outside of the process (e.g., with IANA in the loop) will likely result 
in an application being rejected on a violation of the above "open" 
process. That should avoid my concerns about the team being deluged 
out-of-band ;-)

Joe