Re: registries and designated experts

SM <> Tue, 12 June 2012 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5CA321F861F for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:19:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.45
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fZ4iMcqkNuaE for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDFB821F861D for <>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5CKIojL012163; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1339532336;; bh=s+3vNaALEozH3G6O1ANAM33E/K6+XMWeEsrZLLMfQM0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=sIXV4agjeUUZNWIWQ2sj65+Hygdwj3MY16dRw+jZSHtYDshhvX9bLTxgMHrDZAY7g N3LGTkF+PBURlJu2Gcmhne5wGnA3AJa/j54qpO0McFJVN96GWPREm4I/5CQGW9pvaX Adg8UdFRezhbE6MnIB+1iciqsK7Fj6zrL+lpTgjk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1339532336;; bh=s+3vNaALEozH3G6O1ANAM33E/K6+XMWeEsrZLLMfQM0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=25KVUScRxGohS9JIDhg/kDRBldLzTgLZJTuR4qo8Fex0NJWTbHNxfv221G+tXs6SW IZpcnKjnCg3zPRidP4zztdruzE5xB6+nhsgH1a2vlAwp8ORs0Vjx2boYJZxsz8I7Ca Vueq2ccghnEVmsC4qR/sAclVe4PCVy75GyY0GPi4=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:48:48 -0700
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: registries and designated experts
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: John C Klensin <>
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: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:19:03 -0000

At 11:13 12-06-2012, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>I don't understand that statement. RFC 5226 says, in Section 2 about
>"Why Management of a Namespace May Be Necessary":
>"  A third, and perhaps most important, consideration concerns potential
>    impact on the interoperability of unreviewed extensions."
>One of the specific considerations for designated experts in section 3.3
>"      - the extension would cause problems with existing deployed
>         systems."
>It seems clear that interoperability is a primary concern for any
>expert review.

This gets you into the level of review (see Barry's comment).

The easiest policy is FSFC.  The next step is Expert Review which is 
supposed to have clear guidelines.  If you want interoperability, 
there's Specification Required.  It seems from the above that the 
argument is about avoiding problems with deployed systems.

At 11:38 12-06-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
>I've with Barry on this.  The details of the expectations of an
>expert reviewer, including the thresholds for approval, should
>be specified in whatever document sets up the particular
>registry.  One size does not fit all; "Expert Review" is a
>designation of a mechanism and not a set of criteria.


>We should, IMO, do two things in this area:
>(1) When a document specifies "Expert Review" for a registry, it
>should be required to spell out the criteria the Expert is
>supposed to use, at least to the degree that isn't obvious.  If
>it doesn't, that should be grounds for "DISCUSS until fixed".

I like the idea of spelling up the criteria.

>(2) If it turns out that an Expert for a particular registry is
>not behaving as people expect, part of the process for getting
>that fixed (or even complaining about it), should be to see if
>the registry-creating documents are clear about procedures and
>criteria.  If they are not, an effort to update those criteria
>would be a useful way to discuss the issues and not the
>individual expert.   Of course, Experts who knowingly violate
>clear criteria should be summarily fired -- but I think we can
>trust that to the IESG and note that it has almost never been

The people who come to the registry may not know much about the 
process.  I wonder if they are aware that there is a path to complain 
if there are not satisfied.  Even then, they may find it easier to 
walk away.  I don't think that the individual expert is the 
issue.  The better path is to have clear documentation (what you 
mentioned above) about the criteria so that the registrant can tell 
what the expectations are.  I'll add publication of the median time 
to process a request as information for the registrant.