Re: registries and designated experts
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Tue, 12 June 2012 18:38 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EECF21F861F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id abxdpJIjt5-m for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE6C21F85E7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:38:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.115] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1SeVt0-000IXv-9s; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:32:14 -0400
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:38:32 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: registries and designated experts
Message-ID: <B416CA36462A3CA8C721BDF5@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FD786DC.4090403@gmail.com>
References: <4FCDD499.7060206@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4FCDE96E.5000109@cs.tcd.ie> <4FD7083A.6080502@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4FD74FFC.3050905@stpeter.im> <6.2.5.6.2.20120612073602.09c8cbb8@resistor.net> <4FD786DC.4090403@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:38:40 -0000
--On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 19:13 +0100 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: >> The above is at odds with standardization. The last reason >> does not apply for Expert review. > > 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 is > > " - the extension would cause problems with existing > deployed systems." > > It seems clear that interoperability is a primary concern for > any expert review. Brian, Subramanian, 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". (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 necessary. john
- APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07 Martin J. Dürst
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07 Stephen Farrell
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07 … Martin J. Dürst
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07 … Stephen Farrell
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07,… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07,… Stephen Farrell
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07,… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07,… Stephen Farrell
- registries and designated experts (was: Re: APPSD… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: registries and designated experts Dave Crocker
- Re: registries and designated experts (was: Re: A… Barry Leiba
- Re: registries and designated experts (was: Re: A… SM
- Re: registries and designated experts Brian E Carpenter
- Re: registries and designated experts John C Klensin
- Re: registries and designated experts SM
- Re: registries and designated experts Randy Bush
- Re: registries and designated experts John C Klensin
- Re: registries and designated experts (was: Re: A… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: registries and designated experts Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: registries and designated experts Randy Bush
- Re: registries and designated experts Brian E Carpenter
- RE: registries and designated experts Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: registries and designated experts Thomas Narten
- Re: registries and designated experts ned+ietf
- Re: registries and designated experts John C Klensin
- Re: registries and designated experts Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: registries and designated experts Dave Crocker
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07,… Stephen Farrell
- Re: registries and designated experts Martin J. Dürst
- Re: registries and designated experts Stephen Farrell
- Re: registries and designated experts Martin J. Dürst
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07,… Graham Klyne
- Re: registries and designated experts Graham Klyne
- Re: APPSDIR review of draft-farrell-decade-ni-07,… Graham Klyne