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]>]

Regardless, we're already moving forward to make the identities public 
(not sure if it's happening, or already happened).

Regardless, though, again, this is out of scope for this doc to address 
in detail, IMO.

Joe

On 2/7/2011 1:24 PM, Chris Benson wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Sam Hartman wrote (and others suggest):
>>>
>>>   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.
>>>
>
> I don't see that "public identity" (of expert reviewers) is
> required for "interactive discussion".  Or would anonymous
> interaction fail a Turing test of some kind?
>
> Chris Benson.